A car with problems (which describes my car perfectly:) is better than no transportation at all. I have to have a good alternative. Fixing my bike would do.
A car with irreparable problems is not better than no car at all. It costs money, or takes up space, and gives nothing in return.
So my question for you is, do you have one? speciffically, what alternative creationist theories do you have that would explain the existance of the fossil record as it currently exists?
While I do ascribe to one of the creation theories (and while creation groups are divided, so are evolutionist groups - including darwinists and those that ascribe to punctuated equilibrium), it is irrelevant to this conversation. If I were to reject the creation theory, I would not ascribe to darwinism or any other evolutionary explanation for the origin of life. There is too much fundamentally wrong with it. I think the problems against darwinism can stand on their own without needing recourse to an alternate theory.
There was a time when men did not understand certain things. One does not need an alternative theory before they can reject the absurd.
Keep in mind that the fossil record contains mostly animals that do not exist anymore, and while those animals that do exist do show up sometimes, they are by far the minority.
This does nothing to prove Darwinism. There are many other possibilities for why that is true. I do not deny that there is a change in allele frequencies over time, and that new species can be formed over time. I simply reject the answer that all living things descend from a common ancestor.
This just isn't the case. There are a very large number of examples of gradual change illustrated in the fossil record. The horse and the whale are good cases. You can see each step as the shape of the creature slowly changed over millions of years.
Whales are _not_ good cases. The whale fossils in question do not show a direct sequence, and are not even similar. I don't know where to begin - but it's certainly not a good example.
As for horses, there are living today a great variety of horses. One could theoretically lay them out in a sequence that shows an evolutionary tree - yet it would be nothing more than fiction. Certainly they all share a common ancestor. Yet a horse is still a horse.
Fact is, the only good evidences are the reptile->mammal sequence (which isn't even real, but out of order), and the archaeopteryx. These are an exception to the overall rule of the fossil record - which counteracts darwinism.
There is a good reason for this.
I'm not looking for you to explain how Darwinism explains sudden appearance. The point is simple - the fossil record provides no support for darwinism. And no matter how many times you can provide excuses for a lack of evidence, they are just that: excuses. In order to believe that there is "overwhelming evidence" for the common ancestry of all living things, one must see proof, not excuses for the absence of proof.
The evidence, or lack thereof, is precisely WHY it's not being taken seriously.
I highly doubt that, for two reasons:
1. It is no conspiracy theory to believe that a naturalistic based scientific journal would accept and consider any creation articles that undermine its fundamental philosophy (naturalism). This is unsurprising. Creationists do precisely the same in their peer reviewed journals.
2. I have not yet met a single darwinist (and I have argued with a great number) that understands the creation model. So, when yet another comes along and claims it is because of the lack of evidence, I simply think that he is yet another of the (so far) 100% of darwinists I met that didn't understand. Often though this failure of understanding is also a failure of understanding the nuances of the theory of evolution and its many faces.
Pure imagination. The only reason you say that is because you think it is true. Yet you cannot prove we do have a common ancestry, nor can you prove that chimps will eventually become something other than chimps. You would do well to answer the question - we would like to see such intermediary creatures. Perhaps, for example, an earlier human who shows some of the signs of our incredible intelligence, but not as much.
I never said there was no evidence. I said nothing conclusive. There are many things that point out a young earth too, and many problems with the methods that produce an old age.
I agree that the bible has laid down some useful rules to follow, have 1 days rest a week, don't kill etc. but the world has changed since it was written. You don't have abstain from sex to prevent overpopulation anymore, just use a condom or the pill.
What in the world is this you are referring to? Are you saying that the Bible's restrictions on the practice of sex (only within marriage, not between same sex, or with animals, or with close relatives), was implemented just to reduce population growth?
If so, you should be aware that the patriarchs of the Bible considered it an important role to have children. It was even commanded by God on different occasions. Procreation has always been a positive thing in the eyes of God. So I have no idea what you are talking about.
Religion is just a story (99.999 etc.). Feels good to be part of that epic story and "belong" to a group but I suggest to all believers to stop believing in this disneyworld and face the harsh and wonderful reality.
Greetings. I have debated evolution so many times, and my rejection of it is *not* based on a misunderstanding. I understand the dating methods used for finding out the age of the earth. I understand that they rarely match up - and when they don't, such results are thrown away and only those that match are kept. I also understand that these dating methods are not subjected to tests to find out if they are accurate. There is such a simple way to find out if they are - find a young rock of a known age (say 30 years), and see what age it comes up with. If that sample receives a date of 200,000, 1Mya, or something else, depending on the method, then we know we can't trust these methods. But that's for another story.
The fact is, I do not deny that creatures change, and new species are formed. My claim is simple - that no matter how many generations there are, a human will always be a human. So far as evolution is defined as a variation of allele frequencies in a population, you will find no argument from me. Yet I deny the possibility that I share a common ancestry with a lion - and that is where evolution lacks proof.
The fossil records also do not support the second definition of evolution (the one that states common ancestry). In fact, the only reasonable fossil record there is is the reptile->mammal sequence, and even this isn't in order or real. Along with archaeopteryx, it is the only thing that could be considered evidence from the fossil record. And something being the exception to the rule hardly should become the rule. Stephen Gould himself stated rightly:
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."
The standard response to this is to claim that the fossil record is laid in such a way as to not leave good evidence. While that may be true, it is hard for those of us who are looking for proof of darwinism. I will not accept a theory based on an argument that states it is incapable of leaving evidence. Would you believe I had an invisible gardener that you could not touch, talk to, or see the effects of?
Try not to think about the alternative to darwinism, but instead look at the problems with it. The only area where it has actual, strong, scientific evidence is in the area of astrophysics - there is no denying that the universe is old. This is a fact that Creationists openly admitted as a problem. While they could demonstrate the earth as young, and the inherent problems with darwinism, they could come up with no good answer for the universe. As far as our world goes though - there is no conclusive evidence that the earth is old. And there is, especially, no evidence that life evolved from a single common ancestor.
Alpha Centauri focusses on only one culture of Christianity, and one that I as a Christian have never encountered. It is not a religious game, nor does it accurately portray Christianity. It is, however, a fantastic game and one of my all time favourites. It was always a war filled game when you had Miriam, Yang and Santiago in the same one.
I claim that I have no particular failing there anymore. For which I am then qualified to inform others of the dangers and sins therein.
You have quoted very poorly from Scripture. Jesus was speaking then of the divine election - this man did not enter heaven because Jesus had not chosen him (Matt 19:25-26). Of course God forces salvation on people (Romans 9:11, Eph. 1:5), though none who are forced to receive this salvation will complain - what is there to object to?
So yes, I do believe that Jesus would accept the use of force to protect people from sin. This same Jesus who called the Pharisees and Sadducees a brood of vipers. This same Jesus, who was, and is, and always will be God. As He spoke to the Israelites when they entered Israel:
The Sin of Achan
10 So the LORD said to Joshua: "Get up! Why do you lie thus on your face? 11Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them. For they have even taken some of the accursed things, and have both stolen and deceived; and they have also put it among their own stuff. 12Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they have become doomed to destruction. Neither will I be with you anymore, unless you destroy the accursed from among you. 13Get up, sanctify the people, and say, "Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, because thus says the LORD God of Israel: "There is an accursed thing in your midst, O Israel; you cannot stand before your enemies until you take away the accursed thing from among you." 14In the morning therefore you shall be brought according to your tribes. And it shall be that the tribe which the LORD takes shall come according to families; and the family which the LORD takes shall come by households; and the household which the LORD takes shall come man by man. 15Then it shall be that he who is taken with the accursed thing shall be burned with fire, he and all that he has, because he has transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he has done a disgraceful thing in Israel."'
16So Joshua rose early in the morning and brought Israel by their tribes, and the tribe of Judah was taken. 17He brought the clan of Judah, and he took the family of the Zarhites; and he brought the family of the Zarhites man by man, and Zabdi was taken. 18Then he brought his household man by man, and Achan the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was taken.
19Now Joshua said to Achan, "My son, I beg you, give glory to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession to Him, and tell me now what you have done; do not hide it from me."
20And Achan answered Joshua and said, "Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and this is what I have done: 21When I saw among the spoils a beautiful Babylonian garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, I coveted them and took them. And there they are, hidden in the earth in the midst of my tent, with the silver under it."
22So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent; and there it was, hidden in his tent, with the silver under it. 23And they took them from the midst of the tent, brought them to Joshua and to all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the LORD. 24Then Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, the silver, the garment, the wedge of gold, his sons, his daughters, his oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and all that he had, and they brought them to the Valley of Achor. 25And Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The LORD will trouble you this day." So all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones.
26Then they raised over him a great heap of stones, still there to this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of His anger. Therefore the name of that place has been called the Valley of Achor[1] to this day.
(Joshua 7:10-26). That is force, and so directed by God. It is better if you quote Scriptures that are related to a particular point rather than Scriptures that say nothing - you can't make inferences from silence (ie, you are saying because Jesus didn't force a belief this time that He never forces something on anyone).
What about yours? "Judgement is mine, sayeth the Lord." "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Cast out the beam in your own eye before worrying about the mote in your neighbor's. My philosophy doesn't seem too far afield of that.
Very well. I do not view pornography, so I have cast the beam from my own eye first. God told us clearly His requirements for living, and instructed us to make disciples of all nations. The Bible very clearly shows in principle that pornography is sin against God.
I see those in Shakespeare, too, and most in "Passion of the Christ."
No, those traits I meant are encouraged in the people who view pornography. When one reads the Bible (I'll say nothing of Gibson's movie) it does not encourage that list I wrote, but rather discourages. I was not saying anything about the presence of such things, but rather what seed is planted and grown.
All of the points I was making were that perception of right and wrong dictates popular view of right and wrong (evil and good).
What's that supposed to prove? All you said is that what people think is right and wrong is the foundation for what the popular view of right and wrong is. That proves nothing, and says nothing.
If I lived in a world where the Nazis had won there I could see what they did as Good and seen the jews as evil. This difference in perception means would mean there is no good and evil, since what people see as good and evil can change. If it were absolute, then evil would be evil, good would be good.
Huh? So, if the Nazi's had won, and either brainwashed or killed everyone who disagreed, then what they did was good? Yet if they won, but had a significant number of people thinking what they did was evil then it would be evil? So that if I murdered every single human, my actions would be evil until the point where I murdered the last person? Then suddenly it's good?
Death is always seen as bad, because there is the inherent drive to survive and reproduce in every organism on this planet.
We're talking about good and evil, not about 'bad' - since suffering is bad, but not necessarily evil.
That does not mean that there is morality tied with surviving and reproducing that is drawn from some almighty being in the sky above.
...in the sky above? I don't know what you're talking about. God doesn't live in the sky.
Killing is socially frowned upon because is is disadvantagous to society. There are societies such as the Yanamamo (sp?) tribes in southern america where people kill each other constantly and it is seen as a normal struggle for power. Samurai in Japan did not see killing and death as dishonorable or bad. In America society we view the act of killing itself as a purely evil thing.
First of all, in America you do NOT view the act of killing as a purely evil thing. That is a complete lie - America went to war with Iraq and saw no problem in killing terrorists or murdering citizens as part of the collateral damage.
Second of all, all those people who kill in other cultures do so because of reasons they consider unchanging. They don't say "our killing is right because we think it's right". That is circular reasoning and explains nothing.
If evil and good were absolute then everyone the world over in every situtation would unmistakebly view murder as a bad thing in every situation in every society.
Absolute morality is something apart from human opinion. If we assume that murder is always wrong, that does not mean that every human will always recognise murder or think it is wrong. They could think they are doing the right thing when in fact they do evil.
This is not the case. People disagree on moral issues, because morality is a grey area and it changes over time and human progress. For some people sex before marriage is evil. For some people sex before marriage is beautiful and good. For some people abortion is evil. For some people abortion is good. The list goes on and on. There are no absolutes.
Your argument is useless. You are saying that morality is based on popular opinion. How does that make any sense? When we say something is evil, we are saying that it should never have been done. So, say in 1996 a man rapes a child. That year everyone thinks it is wrong so it is wrong and it should never have been done. End of story. Yet in 2008 rape of children becomes good. So suddenly that man we no longer say has done evil. He has done good. That makes no sense, and is COMPLETELY meaningless.
Tell me, what is evil about raping a child?
You misunderstood every single thing that we said in a way that is favorable to your argument.
I want you to tell me one of two things, because these are the only two options:
1. Objective morality exists (and therefore God exists)
or
2. Objective morality does not exist (thefore raping a child, murdering, greed, betrayel, torture, are not evil, for evil does not exist). Will you admit what others are afraid to say?
Arg. That's such a terrible example. How many people do you know would say, "gee I don't like my neighbour getting that new car I want. That must be because he's made a pact with the devil!". I'm not sure where you live, but down here we don't think like that. And anyway, just because such conclusions have a religious foundation does not mean they are right. They may have justified it using religion x, but religion x actually says something the opposite. And anyone can do the same with science - make up one reason why something took place, when in fact something else is true.
Of course the Nazis have to be brought up since this is an extended argument, but you also need to see that it is yet ANOTHER assumption that you make when you say that we would still know that what the Nazis did is not good. History is written by the victors. Killing is usually seen as bad, but sometimes it is also portrayed as a means to an end, and therefore good. Nazi killings could easily be portrayed as being for the greater good, had they won the war.
As indeed it was, but you are not answering the question. Even if the Nazi's won WW2, exterminated and brainwashed everyone who disagreed with them, would they have been right and have done a good thing?
I'm not missing Bootsy's point at all, but he is missing mine.
Look at the Israel and Palestine situation, both view each other as evil, and neither of them are near perfect, but neither of them is pure evil either.
And you still miss the point - if there is no good, then you cannot say that neither of them is perfect (as in, they have some evil). There is no evil if there is no God - yet we all know that there is evil. Even you testify here to the existence of good and evil, thus declaring God's existence.
Good people are not always rewarded, bad people are not always punished. In the U.S. this process is often mediated by lawyers and money.
For the atheist to answer his critics, he must say that there is no such thing as good people and bad people. You continue to assert that there is a such thing as good people, which is affirming my original argument.
Naturalist beliefes are based on empirical proof, whereas religion is based on beliefs.
That is a highly generalised, and blatantly false remark. *All* naturalists beliefs are based on belief. Evolution itself rests on the unproven assumption of naturalism. Until the atheist demonstrates that there has been no divine or supernatural intervention at any period of history, his philosophy is based on a belief, not proof. On the other hand, there are many religious men and women whose beliefs are founded on proof of God's existence, not on beliefs. They have philosophical proofs (since empirical proofs are not the only method of discerning truth) that guaruntee His existence, thus having a sure foundation for their worldview. You would do well to not make such generalised statements.
I personally consider empirical studies and experiments to be more compelling for my beliefs.
Really? The nature of scientific experiments is that they are upheld until such a time as a situation breaks the rule. So they are a certainty for only as long as there are no exceptions. Philosophical proofs, however, if resting on true foundations will *always* produce a guarunteed truth. So once a philosophical truth is produced, it is more sure than an empirical truth. Bear in mind I do not reject the scientific method. I think it is a very valuable method for obtaining true beliefs - I just want to warn you from falling into the trap of assuming it is the only way to obtain true beliefs. You engage in philosophical reasoning every day to obtain true beliefs, but probably do not realise.
The important difference is that I have reason to believe there are absolute morals. For example, an atheist has no rational foundation for believing that rape of a child is wrong. I do. Whether or not the atheist concludes it is evil is irrelevant - I simply answer that he (the atheist) is capable of such a conclusion because God does exist. That if God did not exist, then the atheist would be irrational and absurd to say anything is "wrong" or "evil".
Also, the fact that many do evil in God's name does not mean that God does not testify against them in their own hearts. Men can deceive themselves. We all know certain things are always wrong and never will be right (rape of children, for example), yet that does not exclude some from concluding otherwise. Should we then conclude that God has given us no clear guidelines, merely because of these exceptions to the rule? I do not think so.
Concepts of right and wrong, good or evil, come only from God, who created us to serve Him.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
Not sure how long this thread has left, but it's been interesting talking with you.
I did already admit such an interpretation is possible, but I think this interpretation raises more questions than the (macro-)evolutionary interpretation does. The loss of diversity by adaptation is not per definition permanent (cross-breeding brings back diversity), and in the case of speciation I can't see how that would count as losing diversity.
I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't. In order for speciation to occur, genetic diversity must be lost. That's what speciation does - more useful genes are selected for in a particular environment under particular selective pressures, and the harmful ones are lost. Allowing the most beneficial ones to dominate most or all of the time.
Generally harmful mutations do get introduced, but get rooted out by natural selection if they don't give some advantage (like sickle cell anemia enables immunity to malaria).
Yet in this case, sickle cell anemia is spreading quite well because it has some advantage, even if that advantage is less than the disadvantage(s) it causes.
That's one of the big questions of this interpretation (aside from introducing metaphysics as mentioned above): how can (absolutely) harmful mutations survive natural selection? (In building hypotheses, when you throw in absolutisms, you're almost always on the brink of metaphysics.)
Answering how harmful mutations survive natural selection - strong warriors fall in love with beautiful, weak women. A woman falls in love with a handsome man in a family full of heart troubles that don't express until after child birth. Natural selection is, ultimately, a guideline. It is a general and not absolute law. Hence why I was saying it is possible that evolution has the role of slowing degeneration, rather than causing the advancement of a race. Darwin expressed natural selection as an absolute (close to) strong rule which selected for the tiniest advantage and against the minutest harmful mutation. Yet reality speaks against this, showing that natural selection is an imperfect force, that generally but not always applies. Darwin also admitted later, it seems, that natural selection was not so strong as he indicated - but was useful to express in such terms in order to defeat opponents of evolution.
Regarding metaphysics, I fail to see the problem. The arguments for the existence of God are *very* strong (so much so that I believe the atheist has no reasonable reply). If we can assume that God exists, then there is absolutely no problem with talking about absolutes. That's one thing I dislike about the current state of science. No, I should say, I detest. People seem to think that science and naturalism go hand in hand. This is in fact an unproven, unfounded philosophical position. When has the atheist/naturalist ever shown us that God does not exist? When has he ever answered the proofs for God's existence? Indeed, Darwin's evolution was the answer for how a world filled with life could arrive without God's intervening hand. It was founded on the assumption that God did not appear. Here is a great secret into the current debate: evolution does not prove that God does not exist - evolution is founded on the premise that He does not exist. The naturalist gives no reason for believing that God played no part in the creation other than a theory they think fits best. If it doesn't fit (and I do not believe it does, since the world shows a degeneration), then we have no reason to believe the naturalist assumption is true.
As I was reading, occam's razor is often said to apply to evolution - the simplest answer to life is evolution. However, this application of occam's razor is based on a naturalist assumption. If one finds proof for God's existence, then suddenly evolution is no longer the simplest answer. Some other special creation, and a degenerating world, becomes the simplest answer. A
Maybe it _is_ for something useful. Perhaps the auction is an excuse to gain money for a basic space trip which will provide the necessary research and money for further learning. This could just be an 'incentive' (no matter how moronic) for people to invest in space programs. Instead of just thanking sponsors, give them a personal touch.
Of course, there are probably better ways, but I doubt that it's just a bunch of people sitting around saying "how can we make a quick few million dollars? I know, let's offer to crash something onto the moon for a rich man!". Someone will accept this most likely because they want to give a donation to help grow the space industry, not because they want an easy way to take out their garbage.
Thankyou for your response. As you probably realised, you didn't answer "what is wrong with murder" from an atheistic perspective. You again appealed to an arbitrary desire for fairness (as you indicated) which has no foundation in an atheistic worldview.
I am supposing that the consequence of this realisation you seemed to muse on the possibility of there being a God, but expressed the belief that which view of Him is accurate cannot be known, so it is better that we do not worry and apply our own rationale.
To answer this question - yes, I believe the reason that you, atheists, and members of other religions can determine somewhat accurately right from wrong is because there is a God. And I find a deeper understanding of this innate knowledge from the Christian God, who through His prophet Moses said:
"Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die"..."Behold the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.". This was the legendary forbidden fruit.
Now your question is a worthwhile one. The argument of morality I used has a formal name - the axiological argument. Once you accept this argument and realise there must be a God, then the question of what He is like, and what He requires (if anything) is an important one. Probably too much detail to go into here. For now I will just offer a suggestion: it has been said by others wiser than me that Christianity is the best place to start. It is simultaneously the most likely to be true, and the easiest to disprove if not true. Unlike most other religions, Christianity opens itself up to be tested and attack by it's skeptics - because we believe our religion is rational. We believe our God is rational, and for that reason He made us rational beings. The world makes sense, and our religion should not have internal contradictions, or even historical ones. This is a summary of my view anyway. Not all Christians share it, as some have lost the belief that Christianity is rational, but believe it anyway.
The other question is, why should you try to find out which religion is true? Consider it this way - if we were created, then we must have been created for a purpose. If we know the difference between good and evil, we know that we ought to do good, and ought not to do evil. We can also conclude that the Creator is good and not evil. It is also a fact that despite our knowledge, we disagree on some points of what is good and what is evil. Therefore, humans, being evil, have corrupted their view of what is good and evil. There is still a shadow of our ability to understand, but not perfectly. Therefore, our Creator being good would be the ultimate standard for knowing:
a. Our purpose in life and meaning
b. What is required of our lives, what is good and what is evil
After all, if there is an intelligent Creator who is wiser than any other man in history, wouldn't you want to know Him? Or at least, wouldn't you want to know if He wants you to know Him? Or any of the other thousands of questions that spring to life over the meaning of our lives.
Isn't the rightness or wrongness of that up to God to decide? You must admit that if God hasn't made this pretty important issue clear, it's quite a problem for his believers.
Well, honestly, I think God has been pretty clear - but I don't want to rush into agreeing with something that there's no hurry to agree with. That way I don't have to make a decision until it's important, and can have as much time as possible to find out if I was mistaken on a fundamental point. Besides, this just isn't much of an important issue for today's Western Christians, so why should we spend our energies answering it? It is certainly a more important one for missionaries in certain other parts of the world.
If I create pornography (how do you feel about cartoon porn and written porn, BTW?), that does not affect you seeking your own path to God, and thus you should not be entitled to prevent me from creating it.
Yes, your philosophy would teach that. As someone else pointed out, how do you feel about the German who allowed himself to be killed and eaten?
Regarding cartoon porn, I listed in this post some of my objections of porn in general, so I'm not fond of this either:
I can't see anything laudable, praisworthy, edifying, good, or righteous about pornography. I see instead addiction, obsession, lust, debauchery, insecurity, adultery, betrayel.
Woops! Major correction on what I previously said. When I said multiple, I was in fact referring to numbers. The reason why I had mentioned multiple men is because that is one story I had heard - multiple women I would have the same objection for. Sorry for misunderstanding yours and my own post.
Well, my post wasn't saying anything about homosexual men or women. I should have expressed myself more clearly - when I said "multiple men" or "multiple women" I was referring to the number of different people at different times, not at the one time. So saying that women should reserve themselves for only one man. Anyway, look up polyandry (which I oppose) and polygyny (which I am undecided about) and you will see what I meant.
Slashdot Mirror
A car with irreparable problems is not better than no car at all. It costs money, or takes up space, and gives nothing in return.
So my question for you is, do you have one? speciffically, what alternative creationist theories do you have that would explain the existance of the fossil record as it currently exists?
While I do ascribe to one of the creation theories (and while creation groups are divided, so are evolutionist groups - including darwinists and those that ascribe to punctuated equilibrium), it is irrelevant to this conversation. If I were to reject the creation theory, I would not ascribe to darwinism or any other evolutionary explanation for the origin of life. There is too much fundamentally wrong with it. I think the problems against darwinism can stand on their own without needing recourse to an alternate theory.
There was a time when men did not understand certain things. One does not need an alternative theory before they can reject the absurd. Keep in mind that the fossil record contains mostly animals that do not exist anymore, and while those animals that do exist do show up sometimes, they are by far the minority.
This does nothing to prove Darwinism. There are many other possibilities for why that is true. I do not deny that there is a change in allele frequencies over time, and that new species can be formed over time. I simply reject the answer that all living things descend from a common ancestor.
Whales are _not_ good cases. The whale fossils in question do not show a direct sequence, and are not even similar. I don't know where to begin - but it's certainly not a good example.
As for horses, there are living today a great variety of horses. One could theoretically lay them out in a sequence that shows an evolutionary tree - yet it would be nothing more than fiction. Certainly they all share a common ancestor. Yet a horse is still a horse.
Fact is, the only good evidences are the reptile->mammal sequence (which isn't even real, but out of order), and the archaeopteryx. These are an exception to the overall rule of the fossil record - which counteracts darwinism.
There is a good reason for this.
I'm not looking for you to explain how Darwinism explains sudden appearance. The point is simple - the fossil record provides no support for darwinism. And no matter how many times you can provide excuses for a lack of evidence, they are just that: excuses. In order to believe that there is "overwhelming evidence" for the common ancestry of all living things, one must see proof, not excuses for the absence of proof.
I highly doubt that, for two reasons:
1. It is no conspiracy theory to believe that a naturalistic based scientific journal would accept and consider any creation articles that undermine its fundamental philosophy (naturalism). This is unsurprising. Creationists do precisely the same in their peer reviewed journals.
2. I have not yet met a single darwinist (and I have argued with a great number) that understands the creation model. So, when yet another comes along and claims it is because of the lack of evidence, I simply think that he is yet another of the (so far) 100% of darwinists I met that didn't understand. Often though this failure of understanding is also a failure of understanding the nuances of the theory of evolution and its many faces.
Pure imagination. The only reason you say that is because you think it is true. Yet you cannot prove we do have a common ancestry, nor can you prove that chimps will eventually become something other than chimps. You would do well to answer the question - we would like to see such intermediary creatures. Perhaps, for example, an earlier human who shows some of the signs of our incredible intelligence, but not as much.
I never said there was no evidence. I said nothing conclusive. There are many things that point out a young earth too, and many problems with the methods that produce an old age.
What in the world is this you are referring to? Are you saying that the Bible's restrictions on the practice of sex (only within marriage, not between same sex, or with animals, or with close relatives), was implemented just to reduce population growth?
If so, you should be aware that the patriarchs of the Bible considered it an important role to have children. It was even commanded by God on different occasions. Procreation has always been a positive thing in the eyes of God. So I have no idea what you are talking about.
As for me, I prefer arguments with substance.The fact is, I do not deny that creatures change, and new species are formed. My claim is simple - that no matter how many generations there are, a human will always be a human. So far as evolution is defined as a variation of allele frequencies in a population, you will find no argument from me. Yet I deny the possibility that I share a common ancestry with a lion - and that is where evolution lacks proof.
The fossil records also do not support the second definition of evolution (the one that states common ancestry). In fact, the only reasonable fossil record there is is the reptile->mammal sequence, and even this isn't in order or real. Along with archaeopteryx, it is the only thing that could be considered evidence from the fossil record. And something being the exception to the rule hardly should become the rule. Stephen Gould himself stated rightly:
The standard response to this is to claim that the fossil record is laid in such a way as to not leave good evidence. While that may be true, it is hard for those of us who are looking for proof of darwinism. I will not accept a theory based on an argument that states it is incapable of leaving evidence. Would you believe I had an invisible gardener that you could not touch, talk to, or see the effects of?Try not to think about the alternative to darwinism, but instead look at the problems with it. The only area where it has actual, strong, scientific evidence is in the area of astrophysics - there is no denying that the universe is old. This is a fact that Creationists openly admitted as a problem. While they could demonstrate the earth as young, and the inherent problems with darwinism, they could come up with no good answer for the universe. As far as our world goes though - there is no conclusive evidence that the earth is old. And there is, especially, no evidence that life evolved from a single common ancestor.
I thought the engineer said: "Are these your lip marks on my glass? Lucky I put the other half of water in a redundant glass" (Dilbert)
Alpha Centauri focusses on only one culture of Christianity, and one that I as a Christian have never encountered. It is not a religious game, nor does it accurately portray Christianity. It is, however, a fantastic game and one of my all time favourites. It was always a war filled game when you had Miriam, Yang and Santiago in the same one.
You have quoted very poorly from Scripture. Jesus was speaking then of the divine election - this man did not enter heaven because Jesus had not chosen him (Matt 19:25-26). Of course God forces salvation on people (Romans 9:11, Eph. 1:5), though none who are forced to receive this salvation will complain - what is there to object to?
So yes, I do believe that Jesus would accept the use of force to protect people from sin. This same Jesus who called the Pharisees and Sadducees a brood of vipers. This same Jesus, who was, and is, and always will be God. As He spoke to the Israelites when they entered Israel:
(Joshua 7:10-26). That is force, and so directed by God. It is better if you quote Scriptures that are related to a particular point rather than Scriptures that say nothing - you can't make inferences from silence (ie, you are saying because Jesus didn't force a belief this time that He never forces something on anyone).
Very well, then we agree :) You no longer are saying that my rights stop at your nose.
Who cares? The question is whether he should be allowed to do it or not.
Very well. I do not view pornography, so I have cast the beam from my own eye first. God told us clearly His requirements for living, and instructed us to make disciples of all nations. The Bible very clearly shows in principle that pornography is sin against God.
No, those traits I meant are encouraged in the people who view pornography. When one reads the Bible (I'll say nothing of Gibson's movie) it does not encourage that list I wrote, but rather discourages. I was not saying anything about the presence of such things, but rather what seed is planted and grown.
What's that supposed to prove? All you said is that what people think is right and wrong is the foundation for what the popular view of right and wrong is. That proves nothing, and says nothing.
Huh? So, if the Nazi's had won, and either brainwashed or killed everyone who disagreed, then what they did was good? Yet if they won, but had a significant number of people thinking what they did was evil then it would be evil? So that if I murdered every single human, my actions would be evil until the point where I murdered the last person? Then suddenly it's good?
We're talking about good and evil, not about 'bad' - since suffering is bad, but not necessarily evil.
Killing is socially frowned upon because is is disadvantagous to society. There are societies such as the Yanamamo (sp?) tribes in southern america where people kill each other constantly and it is seen as a normal struggle for power. Samurai in Japan did not see killing and death as dishonorable or bad. In America society we view the act of killing itself as a purely evil thing.
First of all, in America you do NOT view the act of killing as a purely evil thing. That is a complete lie - America went to war with Iraq and saw no problem in killing terrorists or murdering citizens as part of the collateral damage.
Second of all, all those people who kill in other cultures do so because of reasons they consider unchanging. They don't say "our killing is right because we think it's right". That is circular reasoning and explains nothing.
Absolute morality is something apart from human opinion. If we assume that murder is always wrong, that does not mean that every human will always recognise murder or think it is wrong. They could think they are doing the right thing when in fact they do evil.
Your argument is useless. You are saying that morality is based on popular opinion. How does that make any sense? When we say something is evil, we are saying that it should never have been done. So, say in 1996 a man rapes a child. That year everyone thinks it is wrong so it is wrong and it should never have been done. End of story. Yet in 2008 rape of children becomes good. So suddenly that man we no longer say has done evil. He has done good. That makes no sense, and is COMPLETELY meaningless.
Tell me, what is evil about raping a child?
I want you to tell me one of two things, because these are the only two options:
1. Objective morality exists (and therefore God exists)
or
2. Objective morality does not exist (thefore raping a child, murdering, greed, betrayel, torture, are not evil, for evil does not exist). Will you admit what others are afraid to say?
Well then, isn't that a problem with the people, and not the religion?
Arg. That's such a terrible example. How many people do you know would say, "gee I don't like my neighbour getting that new car I want. That must be because he's made a pact with the devil!". I'm not sure where you live, but down here we don't think like that. And anyway, just because such conclusions have a religious foundation does not mean they are right. They may have justified it using religion x, but religion x actually says something the opposite. And anyone can do the same with science - make up one reason why something took place, when in fact something else is true.
Well said. It annoys me when people make ignorant claims like this, because it shows wishful thinking.
I'm not missing Bootsy's point at all, but he is missing mine.
And you still miss the point - if there is no good, then you cannot say that neither of them is perfect (as in, they have some evil). There is no evil if there is no God - yet we all know that there is evil. Even you testify here to the existence of good and evil, thus declaring God's existence.
For the atheist to answer his critics, he must say that there is no such thing as good people and bad people. You continue to assert that there is a such thing as good people, which is affirming my original argument.
That is a highly generalised, and blatantly false remark. *All* naturalists beliefs are based on belief. Evolution itself rests on the unproven assumption of naturalism. Until the atheist demonstrates that there has been no divine or supernatural intervention at any period of history, his philosophy is based on a belief, not proof. On the other hand, there are many religious men and women whose beliefs are founded on proof of God's existence, not on beliefs. They have philosophical proofs (since empirical proofs are not the only method of discerning truth) that guaruntee His existence, thus having a sure foundation for their worldview. You would do well to not make such generalised statements.Really? The nature of scientific experiments is that they are upheld until such a time as a situation breaks the rule. So they are a certainty for only as long as there are no exceptions. Philosophical proofs, however, if resting on true foundations will *always* produce a guarunteed truth. So once a philosophical truth is produced, it is more sure than an empirical truth. Bear in mind I do not reject the scientific method. I think it is a very valuable method for obtaining true beliefs - I just want to warn you from falling into the trap of assuming it is the only way to obtain true beliefs. You engage in philosophical reasoning every day to obtain true beliefs, but probably do not realise.
Also, the fact that many do evil in God's name does not mean that God does not testify against them in their own hearts. Men can deceive themselves. We all know certain things are always wrong and never will be right (rape of children, for example), yet that does not exclude some from concluding otherwise. Should we then conclude that God has given us no clear guidelines, merely because of these exceptions to the rule? I do not think so.
Concepts of right and wrong, good or evil, come only from God, who created us to serve Him.
I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't. In order for speciation to occur, genetic diversity must be lost. That's what speciation does - more useful genes are selected for in a particular environment under particular selective pressures, and the harmful ones are lost. Allowing the most beneficial ones to dominate most or all of the time.
Yet in this case, sickle cell anemia is spreading quite well because it has some advantage, even if that advantage is less than the disadvantage(s) it causes.
Answering how harmful mutations survive natural selection - strong warriors fall in love with beautiful, weak women. A woman falls in love with a handsome man in a family full of heart troubles that don't express until after child birth. Natural selection is, ultimately, a guideline. It is a general and not absolute law. Hence why I was saying it is possible that evolution has the role of slowing degeneration, rather than causing the advancement of a race. Darwin expressed natural selection as an absolute (close to) strong rule which selected for the tiniest advantage and against the minutest harmful mutation. Yet reality speaks against this, showing that natural selection is an imperfect force, that generally but not always applies. Darwin also admitted later, it seems, that natural selection was not so strong as he indicated - but was useful to express in such terms in order to defeat opponents of evolution.
Regarding metaphysics, I fail to see the problem. The arguments for the existence of God are *very* strong (so much so that I believe the atheist has no reasonable reply). If we can assume that God exists, then there is absolutely no problem with talking about absolutes. That's one thing I dislike about the current state of science. No, I should say, I detest. People seem to think that science and naturalism go hand in hand. This is in fact an unproven, unfounded philosophical position. When has the atheist/naturalist ever shown us that God does not exist? When has he ever answered the proofs for God's existence? Indeed, Darwin's evolution was the answer for how a world filled with life could arrive without God's intervening hand. It was founded on the assumption that God did not appear. Here is a great secret into the current debate: evolution does not prove that God does not exist - evolution is founded on the premise that He does not exist. The naturalist gives no reason for believing that God played no part in the creation other than a theory they think fits best. If it doesn't fit (and I do not believe it does, since the world shows a degeneration), then we have no reason to believe the naturalist assumption is true.
As I was reading, occam's razor is often said to apply to evolution - the simplest answer to life is evolution. However, this application of occam's razor is based on a naturalist assumption. If one finds proof for God's existence, then suddenly evolution is no longer the simplest answer. Some other special creation, and a degenerating world, becomes the simplest answer. A
Of course, there are probably better ways, but I doubt that it's just a bunch of people sitting around saying "how can we make a quick few million dollars? I know, let's offer to crash something onto the moon for a rich man!". Someone will accept this most likely because they want to give a donation to help grow the space industry, not because they want an easy way to take out their garbage.
I am supposing that the consequence of this realisation you seemed to muse on the possibility of there being a God, but expressed the belief that which view of Him is accurate cannot be known, so it is better that we do not worry and apply our own rationale.
To answer this question - yes, I believe the reason that you, atheists, and members of other religions can determine somewhat accurately right from wrong is because there is a God. And I find a deeper understanding of this innate knowledge from the Christian God, who through His prophet Moses said:
"Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die"..."Behold the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.". This was the legendary forbidden fruit.
Now your question is a worthwhile one. The argument of morality I used has a formal name - the axiological argument. Once you accept this argument and realise there must be a God, then the question of what He is like, and what He requires (if anything) is an important one. Probably too much detail to go into here. For now I will just offer a suggestion: it has been said by others wiser than me that Christianity is the best place to start. It is simultaneously the most likely to be true, and the easiest to disprove if not true. Unlike most other religions, Christianity opens itself up to be tested and attack by it's skeptics - because we believe our religion is rational. We believe our God is rational, and for that reason He made us rational beings. The world makes sense, and our religion should not have internal contradictions, or even historical ones. This is a summary of my view anyway. Not all Christians share it, as some have lost the belief that Christianity is rational, but believe it anyway.
The other question is, why should you try to find out which religion is true? Consider it this way - if we were created, then we must have been created for a purpose. If we know the difference between good and evil, we know that we ought to do good, and ought not to do evil. We can also conclude that the Creator is good and not evil. It is also a fact that despite our knowledge, we disagree on some points of what is good and what is evil. Therefore, humans, being evil, have corrupted their view of what is good and evil. There is still a shadow of our ability to understand, but not perfectly. Therefore, our Creator being good would be the ultimate standard for knowing:
a. Our purpose in life and meaning
b. What is required of our lives, what is good and what is evil
After all, if there is an intelligent Creator who is wiser than any other man in history, wouldn't you want to know Him? Or at least, wouldn't you want to know if He wants you to know Him? Or any of the other thousands of questions that spring to life over the meaning of our lives.
Well, honestly, I think God has been pretty clear - but I don't want to rush into agreeing with something that there's no hurry to agree with. That way I don't have to make a decision until it's important, and can have as much time as possible to find out if I was mistaken on a fundamental point. Besides, this just isn't much of an important issue for today's Western Christians, so why should we spend our energies answering it? It is certainly a more important one for missionaries in certain other parts of the world.
Yes, your philosophy would teach that. As someone else pointed out, how do you feel about the German who allowed himself to be killed and eaten?
Regarding cartoon porn, I listed in this post some of my objections of porn in general, so I'm not fond of this either:
I can't see anything laudable, praisworthy, edifying, good, or righteous about pornography. I see instead addiction, obsession, lust, debauchery, insecurity, adultery, betrayel.
Woops! Major correction on what I previously said. When I said multiple, I was in fact referring to numbers. The reason why I had mentioned multiple men is because that is one story I had heard - multiple women I would have the same objection for. Sorry for misunderstanding yours and my own post.
Well, my post wasn't saying anything about homosexual men or women. I should have expressed myself more clearly - when I said "multiple men" or "multiple women" I was referring to the number of different people at different times, not at the one time. So saying that women should reserve themselves for only one man. Anyway, look up polyandry (which I oppose) and polygyny (which I am undecided about) and you will see what I meant.