Slashdot Mirror

That claim does not survive close scrutiny. Think about it : which standard of proof would you require ?

1) can be reduced into nothing, only depends on the notation you want to use for reasoning : even math does not satisfy this one, only small parts of logic do
2) can be reduced into basic, small axiom sets : basic maths, although only fractions are allowed, no real numbers, no infinite sets. Most calculations are possible with this standard. When working strictly with basic axiom sets and rejecting anything outside of those, Pi does not exist, for it cannot be proven to exist. Also none of the "exact" sciences work like this.
There are variations on 2, of course : which axiom systems ? google constructivism for an example conflict about that. Or "axiom of choice".
3) "works really well in conjunction with those basic axiom sets, but has problems with consistency, though no-one has pointed out blatant conflicts (yet)": doesn't sound all that absolute a standard anymore, does it ? Here we finally have a standard that maths satisfies.
4) reduces into a large set of slightly-conflicting "laws", most of which have been statistically tested in the real world to great accuracy, even though there are obvious contradictions in the laws. E.g. either relativity is true or quantum mechanics. Since they make contradictory predictions, they can't both be true. That's just one well-known conflict, there are others, say thermodynamics conflicts with the standard model. Most "exact" sciences, physics would actually be the only real example.
5) "works really well in conjunction with those 'laws'" : Most "exact" sciences, chemistry, engineering, geology...
Here starts the line that religion, or at least Western religion, ie. Christianity, satisfies
6) things that have been consistently written about as true for years at least : Christian religion, history
7) things that can be observed being part of human behavior, even though human behavior changes quite rapidly : most of the humanities, languages, ...
8) things that are believed to be true by large groups of people : psychology, sociology, biology, ... most other religions
9) things that are simply considered interesting : art

Those are all scientific standards of truth. It is easy to see that there is no simple answer : any religion that tries to have no conflict between science and religion easily satisfies standards 6,7,8 and 9. And things like history are in the same boat.

There's lots of engineers here, who are generally trained to accept a slightly higher standard for truth, but the mathematician in me feels obliged to say that for example religion is "more" true than history, "more" true than any statement in psychology, ...

Also Christianity is relatively unique in that it meshes quite well with science. God and Jesus do not have a direct conflict with science, or at least there are no theoretical problems here. Science does not exclude God's involvement through miracles, and Christians do believe in a mostly mechanical universe (they just claim it's not strictly mechanical). Most other religions, like islam, see the religion as the only valid theory of the world, even where it is obviously wrong (islam claims you can't fire an arrow in the direction of Mecca, just for kicks, I tested that. You definitely can). There are other hilarious conflicts (you could actually buy camel piss in a can last year in Egypt. You know, cans like coke, except with ...). more idiocies.

But this is a general pattern in the religion. The bible is really careful about what claims it makes, and the exact wording of those claims, especially in the original language. There is very little in there that is outrageously and obviously wrong. The bible is quite literally a set of stories with historical significance. In contrast, all

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=925

This link gives a great break down of the 2 lines. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932 also look at the image to see it visually.

The argument of Did God use evolution to create, well I know of a good video to watch about it. From creation.com (warning an hour long)
The site creation.com as you can guess is my favorite site. Go on and explore that site and see what you think compared to the evidence. They even have a series of videos in the media section.

The reason evolution means God did nothing is because the belief behind evolution means everything does things on their own, and no outside interference.
Dawkins says its deluded too
Classic talk about this doesn't work with the God of the Bible.

Thats funny. My own senses tell me there is a God or else I would have just killed myself many years ago. Do you really think someone that gets an 8 year theology degree completely lacks any critical thinking? What do you think apologetics are all about? http://www.apologeticspress.org/ If it weren't for atheists we wouldn't need any critical thinking any way. And anyway, do I really need critical thinking to read a blueprint? Do I need critical thinking to write a perl script? Do I need critical thinking to be an office clerk? No and no. I don't know of too many jobs that would require skills to "question assumptions." Typically assumptions come from your manager, and questioning him gets you fired. Furthermore seeing as how "critical thinking" is more philosophical than anything, how can it truly be taught? It is based completely on one's personal opinion. God calls us to be obedient and serve. Not to lay around and do what ever we feel like until judgment comes.

Also of interest is this article

It states that 345 Neanderthal individuals have been discovered so far. That seems like an awfully small number to make any assumptions about how much head clubbing was going on at the time (argument from the previous article that we didn't kill them off), especially if the ones that we discovered were in the few groups that managed to hide out somewhere that we didn't find them.

I mock religion all the time. I have to hold science and scientists up to the same standard. I'd be a hypocrite to accept unprovable scientific mumbojumbo, interdimensional whatnots and all. at face value while discounting unprovable religious mumbojumbo all the time.

I agree that if something is not testable then it is not science. I also agree that we should not accept things as true without adequate evidence. But, I've noticed a trend of people who seem to just about (if not whole-heartedly) deify science and I guess I don't fully understand why.

What I mean is that if something cannot be proven scientifically it is claimed either (1) it does not exist or (2) should not be accepted unless and until it can be proven scientifically. Since when does science answer everything? Science has a limited domain in which it operates. If you try to apply it outside of that domain it breaks down.

For instance, to quote from: here ... "Science never will be able to observe or explain such concepts as love, hate, sorrow, or joy. Science never will be able to explain why a man in a foxhole during a war throws himself on a hand grenade to save his fellow soldiers."

I have never seen, tasted, touched, smelled, or heard love. I have observed the effects and expression of love, but not love itself. If I were to apply science only, I would say love does not exist. Love is not something that is testable. Yet, we know that love does exist as much as hate, sorrow, and joy. In such cases, we use logic and reasoning, without the scientific method, and still come to a valid and truthful conclusion.

The same follows in a court of law. Science can aide in solving a crime and bringing about an innocent or guilty verdict based on that evidence. But there are times where the truth is not ascertained by science, but by eye witness testimony. If 100 people confess to seeing a crime, and their stories match up very closely, then through logic and reasoning, the truth is discovered. There are no scientific hypotheses or tests performed.

So, I have a question to which I would appreciate some honest answers. Despite the tone of this post, I am not trying to start a flamewar. I really would like to understand some alternative viewpoints.

Why is it we readily accept things proven scientifically, yet reject those things that cannot be proven scientifically, but can be proven with other valid means (e.g., logic and reasoning)?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/304

>>that bees fly because little ridges on their wing roots act as vortex generators, breaking up the airflow above the wing?

Sort of. The answer is in wake capture. The bee wing swings back through the vorticies created during the last occilation, recapturing some of the energy.

Many more links and more info at:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2528

Why do you insist that science behave in an unscientific manner (e.g., accept claims without asking for proof, or accept a supernatural explanation for natural phenomenon)? Do you really hate science that much?

I do not hate science, but rather enjoy provable and repeatable science. However, the theory of evolution is neither provable or repeatable.

Here are some issues I have with the theory of evolution:
1. The creation of the universe
Evolution must start with the creation of the universe to be relevant. Most popular theories are based on a "Big Bang" or expanding universe premise. This theory states that there was some amount of super dense matter that imploded/exploded and began the universe. However, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that neither energy or matter can be created or destroyed (e=MC2). If e=MC2 is true, then where did the original matter come from? Did it just exist or was it created?

2. Gender
Assuming #1 doesn't matter, and evolutionary theory is true, where all living things started from single cell organisms that reproduced asexually, where did gender come from? If evolution takes the best traits of previous incarnations and passes them forward, why would something as inefficient as gender evolve?

Excerpt from

The Origin of Gender and Sexual Reproduction [Part I]
By Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
Biology texts are quick to illustrate amoebas evolving into intermediate organisms, which then conveniently give rise to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and, eventually, humans. Yet, interestingly, we never learn exactly when (or how!) independent male and female species "evolved." Somewhere along this evolutionary path, both males and females were required in order to ensure the procreation that was necessary to further the existence of a particular species. But how do evolutionists explain this? When pressed to answer questions such as, "Where did males and females actually come from?," or "What is the evolutionary origin of sex?," evolutionists become as silent as the tomb in which they have laid this perennial problem. How is it that, at one point in time, "nature" was able to evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently "evolved" so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells?

3. Fossil Records for all other species
Assuming all species evolved, shouldn't there be fossil records of the other animal's evolution?

4. Flowers
Assuming all vegetation as well as animals evolved, why do many plants require insects for pollination? Does this mean that all flowering plants evolved after insects appeared? If so, why evolve into such an inefficient type of reproduction?

These are some of many questions that I do not believe can be answered through evolutionist theory without some sort of leap of faith that 1. Matter existed for the Big Bang, 2. A male and female version of every species evolved at relatively the same time, 3. Fossils are too hard to find to prove everything, and 4. evolution doesn't always produce the most efficient species (Natural Selection). So by having faith in these things kind of turns evolution

How can macroevolution be extrapolated from microevolution? ... I've been told when trying to figure out if a plant is safe to eat you go through a process of tasting, then chewing, then swallowing, each time waiting a period of time before doing the next step. The thing is you have to repeat the process SEPARATELY for leaves, branches, and fruit (berries or what not) from the SAME plant.

Microevolution does not necessarily prove macroevolution. If you prove one you must prove the other separately, otherwise you are not following the scientific process... your "extrapolating," as you put it, is poisonous to the scientific process because it assumes too much.

I agree that microevolution occurs... a beagle with a golden retriever... yeah that's microevolution in action. But I can't extrapolate a human from an ape or an amoeba based on a new breed of dog.

Sites like this have articles to help show how you can harmonize the Bible and science without need of evolution, the Big Bang or otherwise. The site doesn't simply quote religious philosophers or scientists, but includes quotes from men like Carl Sagan to disprove their own theories and show how even evolutionists, like Mr. Sagan, didn't believe evolution as deeply as they wanted us to believe. I'm still looking for proof on how the O.T. is metaphorical and not literal plus metaphorical. (Side note, please remember that the Torah is Genesis to Deuteronomy, not the whole of the O.T. canon). One common rule of hermeneutics (the science of interpreting the Bible) is that you take a passage as being literal unless the context demands a non-literal interpretation. If the days of creation were not literal 24 hour days, but were 1 billion (or another large number) years each then plants went quite a long time without the sun and hence photosynthesis... YIKES!

I'm not trying to preach or flame, just asking you to be careful which theories and ideas you accept as true.

That doesn't mean the theory is false

That doesn't mean the theory is false

Uhmmmm.... NO.

That was why the Dead Sea Scrolls caused such a stir. The scrolls were sealed in a dry cave between 152BC and 63BC. The scrolls consisted of thousands of fragments of the Old Testament and Jewish histories. When compared against the Bible of today, they were found to be a nearly exact match.

"The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations. Further, there were no major doctrinal differences between the accepted and Qumran texts."

You can read more at...

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity

Hey, maybe dragon mythos does have basis in fact. If you ask this guy. He claims they were dinosaurs that forgot they were suppose to be extinct.

Have you been to the sun? How do you know it's full of Hydrogen and Helium? It's based on an assumption, that was later on substantiated with evidence (spectra of the sunlight). Have you seen a Black Hole? It was based on an assumption that it's quite likely Black hole exist, and later on they were substantiated with evidence by observation.

Funny you should mention that... Have you ever seen God? How do you know he does not exist? How do you know the Bible is not true? Have you considered evidence for it ( try here )?

Here's a scenario (with parameters) for your consideration...

1. Let's say I was smart enough to create an AI with the intelligence of a human and put it on a PC
   
2. The PC has no access to the internet, no webcams or any other devices to allow the AI to see any of the outside world
   
3. Basically its only link to the outside world is a power cable (a headless box, no keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc. all external ports are unused, you with me?)
   
4. And I leave files and various clues and hints of my existence on the PC to let the AI know I exist...
   

Now, by all accounts that AI has NO ability to see me or even know I exist right? The only evidence I exist is those files I left to prove I exist. Now the AI has two choices about my existence, it can either choose to believe the evidence I left (that is a true faith and not a blind faith) or it can reject my evidence and decide it will only go off what it can "see" (files it can read, parse, programs it can run, etc.). The AI has only these two choices because it cannot see outside the box or think outside the box because it has no way to even figure out where the walls of the box are. Yet I still exist regardless of the AI's choice. And the AI's existence depends on my pulling the power plug or not.

This is where Christianity vs. atheism/skepticism/agnosticism/etc. stands. The Christian is like the AI saying I can't see him (me for this example), but I see the evidence he left for me so I believe he exists. The atheist/etc. is like the AI saying I see the evidence, but I still can't "see" him directly so I cannot believe in him.

The choice you make is still up to you, but your belief or lack thereof doesn't effect whether God exists. I choose to believe in God because I've considered Christianity, I've considered what other religions say, and I've considered various scientific theories so-called and Christianity has far fewer holes than any other items mentioned if you allow yourself to believe that the creation cannot find the creator UNLESS the creator reveals himself. In this case the creator revealed himself through the Bible, scientific evidences (see the link above), and common sense (IMHO). God does not have to show me his literal spirit for me to believe in Him, he's left evidence that leads to the conclusion that he and he alone exists as God.

Like I was saying you're allowed to believe what you want, but be careful that you don't dismiss others and their beliefs lightly. Not all of us believe things because "pastor so-and-so" told me so. In fact, pastor is the wrong term for a preacher anyways, but that's another topic for another day.

And the source of these comments would be???

How about the track record of Christians faced with the carbon dating of the Turin Shroud?

Or how about this fine example of feebleminded apologetics?

Seriously, why bother pretending that you're willing to take scientific evidence seriously, when you reserve the right to make arguments of the form "If God wants it to be so, then it's so."?

Well, I don't know if anyone is still reading posts for this article, but in case anyone does, I'm throwing in my $0.02.

I think you somewhat misunderstand certain people in the religious world. Now as a whole, many who practice a religion, especially in so-called "Christianity", take everything completely on faith. And certainly you cannot prove the existence of God's soul, or heaven, or hell, or any other spiritual beings, because they exist outside the universe and time.

However, those of us who are truly dedicated to Christianity don't take God entirely on faith. Rather we look at the design in the universe, and I believe rightly conclude, that this order could not have happened by mistake, nor that the universe is eternal. We look at what we call "Christian Evidences" to help solidify our faith. And Christian Evidences are another word for scientific facts we use from both creationists *AND* non-creationists scientists alike, to show that no other theories of the existence and organization of the universe can be valid or than the God of the Bible.

One big and well-known website in the brotherhood dedicated to presenting these facts is apologeticspress.org. For instance, one thing I recall reading on there is that the earth moves about 18 miles/sec in its orbit and for every 19 miles I believe it was (I might have those 2 numbers switched) the earth departs from a straight line by about 0.9 inches. Now if the earth moved 0.8 inches or 1.0 inches instead, all life on earth would either freeze or incinerate. The probability of this happening by chance, as I'm sure you can imagine, or not too good. And there's 1000's, if not millions, more facts like that out there.

So while as Christians, we are forced to take certain things on faith, it is not a blind faith, but rather one based on the evidence around us.

And scientists are the same way with scientific theories. Either you blindly accept scientific theories (a blind faith), or you believe scientific principles based on the facts. I believe Galileo could back me up here with what he went through in his time.

Check this out for information on the global flood. It was real. Yes there are variations in some of the stories in various cultures pertaining to the flood, but that is do to the progression of the cultures. These stories were passed on as oral stories for many hundreds and thousands of years and would likely have changed at least a little. A simple experiment can be conducted to prove this. Get 20 people in a room, write a story on a piece of paper (keep it to two or three paragraphs), send person 1 and 2 into another room, have person 1 read the story (exactly as it is written) to person 2, have person 1 leave the room and send in person 3, person 2 should tell the story to person 3, person 2 should leave the room and person 4 should enter, the story should be told by person 3 to person 4, etc up to person 19 telling the story to person 20. Have person 3, person 10 and person 20 write the story down and then compare the three stories. There will be differences in the stories. This doesn't mean that one of the stories isn't true and the earliest of them should be the closest to original story. Thus the Biblical version of the flood is likely the closest to the true story as it was written the earliest.

I don't understand you reference to Genesis 30. This is the story of Jacob (Israel), his wifes, and 12 sons. Yes Jacob had 4 wifes (well two wifes and two handmaidens as wifes) and yes the culture of the day allowed a wife to claim the children of her handmaiden as her children, if they were fathered by her husband. This in no way claims that they are genetically related to the wife, she just claimed them as the fathers genetics were of the most important of the time.

Again please read the document referenced above, it make several very valid points concerning the flood being global versus regional. I will highlight one to hopefully interest you, why would Noah have spent 100+ years planning and building an ark for a regional flood? If the flood had been regional and he was being warned, why could he have not just have left the region? A person/family could travel a great distance in 100 years. That is a rather simple example, but well worth thinking about. Please read the document!

Evolutionists conveniently ignore any evidence that could support biblical fact, as well as any "holes" it their theory. They make it seem as if it is scientific fact while the theory actually has facts contrary to it. The Bible, while some may disagree, has never been proven wrong. Even though throughout history, people have tried everything to disprove it, it has overcome.

If Evolution is possible, then where are the fossils from all of the missing links between evolutionary stages? That would be proof. Where is it? Am I to believe that every evolutionary stage between Entity A and Entity B died without leaving a single fossil? And if macro-evolution is possible, then why isn't each Entity on the face of our super-ancient planet it its own stage of evolution. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that all of humanity is on the same level of evolution? Shouldn't at least some of us be a few millennia behind others? And primitive cultures don't apply, I am talking physical, not social development.

As you can plainly see, I don't believe in the evolutionary "work-around". I think that the theory exists simply because many of us need to find a way to disprove the Bible, so that they can sleep soundly at night thinking that they will not have to answer for their actions to some supreme being.

As for the dinosaur bones, they weren't planted to confuse mankind. That is not God's way. Besides, that would border on the dishonest, and God cannot lie. And since (if you take into account Biblical and secular histories) the earth is somewhere in the vicinity of 8 to 10 thousand years old, evolution and guided evolution doesn't work. Also there would not have been millions of years for dinosaurs to exist before man. So various day-age theories about the 7 days of creation don't fit. So what's left? Dinosaurs had to have co-existed with man. In the book of Job, two creatures are described that perfectly fit with a land-based dinosaur and a dragon-like, fire-breathing, sea monster (dinosaur). Plus, there are ancient drawings in caves in the Grand Canyon that depicts men and dinosaur-like beings together. As far as I know, these races of people did not draw things that they did not see. Where did they all go? Our scientists and archaeologists have claimed that only a global disaster could have wiped out so many of these creatures. Gee, isn't the great flood a global disaster?

Anyway, I could go on for hours, but since by now, most of you are flaming mad or getting bored with this post, I will stop. If you are interested in trying to find out more about any of this, then check out this site. Dr. Bert Thompson is a brilliant man who has devoted most of his life to the study of scientific "fact" versus Biblical "fact".

Yup, it's full of contradictions!

the archaeology in the silly stories is better than outside them

a whole heap of archaelogists would disagree with you.

physical copies of texts from before 2k years ago have been found, and despite claims of babelfishing, they're still accurate.

Examples???

Ask Steve Gould and the other punkeekers to show you why Darwinian evolution doesn't work, and he will. Ask their Darwinian opponents to show you why punkeek doesn't work, and they will. End of story.

Neither side has disproven the other, they are argueing about details not the fundamentals.

the archaeology in the silly stories is better than outside them

a whole heap of archaelogists would disagree with you.

physical copies of texts from before 2k years ago have been found, and despite claims of babelfishing, they're still accurate.

Examples???

Ask Steve Gould and the other punkeekers to show you why Darwinian evolution doesn't work, and he will. Ask their Darwinian opponents to show you why punkeek doesn't work, and they will. End of story.

Neither side has disproven the other, they are argueing about details not the fundamentals.