Do you believe the theory of Evolution to be true?

[Stu]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 19 2007,07:06)

Hi Stu, So if the books could be divinely inspired then God must exist. Perhaps your books of science are divinely inspired but then all is ever unproven to you so such a god would be useless. And yet you mock the God from Whom we find truth.

If science textbooks are divinely inspired, why does the inspirer keep altering the ideas described in them, as new evidence comes to light? Is he playing some kind of childish game with us?

I don't believe there is such a god to mock, actually. I mock the fantasy that you take so seriously. I especially find ridiculous the certainty that you claim your 'truth-giving' god gives you, when the interpretation of that 'truth' almost exactly matches the knowledge of contemporary humans across the world, regardless of culture or faith, or none, and changes at about the same rate as society does. Take as two examples racism and slavery. 150 years ago, everyone in Western cultures would have been considered racist by today's standards. Is there evidence that there was a unique stance taken by christians on the question of racist attitudes back then? No, they conformed to the norm for the age, and I bet they rationalised it in biblical terms. I don't need to tell you that the bible outlines what one may do with one's slaves, yet christians now would say that slavery is in some way sinful. Where is the consistency of the ages here? It is no better, and I would argue is worse, than the non-christian views of each generation.

Stuart

Stuart

[Stu]

Hi t8

Quote

You rant and rave a lot, but I have never heard you answer the following question/s: Where did the singularity come from?

I don’t know.

Quote

How is it that this singularity unraveled to create all things that exist today?

I don’t know.

Quote

Surely this singularity didn't come from nothing.

I don’t know.

Quote

How can nothing produce a singularity that eventually unraveled to become a complex universe of billions of galaxies, trillions of suns, probably mega-trillions of planets, and countless atoms.

I don’t know.

Quote

How does nothing do all this, and yet you who possesses the intelligence of a smart ape, cannot even produce a banana.

I need many millions of years sitting in a garden watching bananas evolve to produce one. I could help it along with some artificial selection (which is what happened). Unfortunately, unlike you, I don’t have an eternity to watch bananas evolving.

Quote

How can nothing out do you so much that it seems that you are much less than nothing?

What?

Quote

Until you can start to tackle such things, all the other stuff you say about how one process formed another and so on, is completely meaningless with regards to God existing or not.

I agree that science takes no position on the existence of god, except to say that no-one has successfully made an evidence-based case for the existence of any god and all our explanations work very well without such an hypothesis.

Quote

All that you have said so far has no bearing on the existence of God at all.

I know it doesn’t. You are making that extraordinary claim without evidence.

Quote

How about you start tackling that which actually matters?

Well I think you have not actually asked me a question that I can answer.

Quote

I await your answer as usual, but I do expect that you will be silent once again.

Wasn’t I doing a lot of ranting a moment ago? Make up your mind!

Quote

But burying your head in the sand only means that someone can kick your butt. How about taking your head out of the sand and tackling the real challenge regarding your nothing became everything theory?

It is a strawman to say that I have proposed that everything came from nothing. I have said nothing at all like that, and there is no scientific theory of everything from nothing, as far as I am aware. I could equally insist that you tell us the real truth about your recent trip to the Moon. If everything else is pointless without knowledge about what happened before the big bang, I wonder how you cope on a day-to-day level. Maybe by thinking that some here will be impressed by your brilliant slaughter of men made of straw.

Stuart

[NickHassan]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 19 2007,18:09)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 19 2007,07:06) Hi Stu, So if the books could be divinely inspired then God must exist. Perhaps your books of science are divinely inspired but then all is ever unproven to you so such a god would be useless. And yet you mock the God from Whom we find truth. If science textbooks are divinely inspired, why does the inspirer keep altering the ideas described in them, as new evidence comes to light?  Is he playing some kind of childish game with us? I don't believe there is such a god to mock, actually.  I mock the fantasy that you take so seriously.  I especially find ridiculous the certainty that you claim your 'truth-giving' god gives you, when the interpretation of that 'truth' almost exactly matches the knowledge of contemporary humans across the world, regardless of culture or faith, or none, and changes at about the same rate as society does.  Take as two examples racism and slavery. 150 years ago, everyone in Western cultures would have been considered racist by today's standards.  Is there evidence that there was a unique stance taken by christians on the question of racist attitudes back then?  No, they conformed to the norm for the age, and I bet they rationalised it in biblical terms.  I don't need to tell you that the bible outlines what one may do with one's slaves, yet christians now would say that slavery is in some way sinful.  Where is the consistency of the ages here?  It is no better, and I would argue is worse, than the non-christian views of each generation. Stuart Stuart

Hi Stu,
Are you confusing churchianity with following Jesus?

[Laurel]

This is a waste of time.

[Proclaimer]

Stu.

Here are some choices.

[Stu]

Quote (Laurel @ Dec. 19 2007,20:50)

This is a waste of time.

Sorry Laurel, what is a waste of time? Have you voted in the poll? Do you care about origins? (it's not compulsory to, but human nature is to be curious) Do you have any other opinion about evolution to contribute to this thread?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 20 2007,07:32)

Stu. Here are some choices. Everything came from nothing Everything came from something Everything came from someone If you cannot answer this question and have no idea of its answer, then you are not in a position to argue that God doesn't exist. Simple as that.

So, by exactly the same argument, your own silence on the question of how 'something' arose will be a good reason for us to no longer hear you proclaim the existence of your god.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 19 2007,19:23)

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 19 2007,18:09) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 19 2007,07:06) Hi Stu, So if the books could be divinely inspired then God must exist. Perhaps your books of science are divinely inspired but then all is ever unproven to you so such a god would be useless. And yet you mock the God from Whom we find truth. If science textbooks are divinely inspired, why does the inspirer keep altering the ideas described in them, as new evidence comes to light?  Is he playing some kind of childish game with us? I don't believe there is such a god to mock, actually.  I mock the fantasy that you take so seriously.  I especially find ridiculous the certainty that you claim your 'truth-giving' god gives you, when the interpretation of that 'truth' almost exactly matches the knowledge of contemporary humans across the world, regardless of culture or faith, or none, and changes at about the same rate as society does.  Take as two examples racism and slavery. 150 years ago, everyone in Western cultures would have been considered racist by today's standards.  Is there evidence that there was a unique stance taken by christians on the question of racist attitudes back then?  No, they conformed to the norm for the age, and I bet they rationalised it in biblical terms.  I don't need to tell you that the bible outlines what one may do with one's slaves, yet christians now would say that slavery is in some way sinful.  Where is the consistency of the ages here?  It is no better, and I would argue is worse, than the non-christian views of each generation. Stuart Stuart Hi Stu, Are you confusing churchianity with following Jesus?

Jesus said 'it is good to teach' (the book that includes instructions on what you may do with slaves). What better endorsement could a christian have, and yet people now believe slavery itself is wrong. Christians even take credit for busting the slave trade within the last couple of centuries, yet what an insult to the man who said it is all good to teach.

Stuart

[NickHassan]

Hi Stu,
It is a misconception to think that Jesus came as a political leader determined to establish a political kingdom 2000 years ago. He lived in a time of illegal oppression by Rome when justice was not necessarily fair and he did nothing about it but told them to pay to Caesar what was his. Peter, Paul and the other apostles also did not advise anything active politically but how to live within the society in which they found themselves and that society had slaves.

[Laurel]

Yes Stu I did and yes Stu I do. Evolution is a science. Science is simply man using his brain to figure out everything.

A man's mind is enmity toward our Creator.

So then, IF a man usus his own mind to figure out how we came to be…

THEN He is merely wasting his time.

It is all for nothing, because eventually man will prove himself wrong and realize a lot of precious time a money was wasted!

[Laurel]

BTW Stu,
If you keep debating with these people who mostly are set in their ways and do not have the truth in them, though they claim to, you are wasting your time.

Really Stu,
You need to ask first if there was a Creator and He would proove it to you, would you then become obedient to Him?

I mean if there really was One true God in the heavens, and He really did send His Son to us to be a living example of who He is, and could proove it to you…

Would you Set-apart your life to the One who makes all thing possible?

If yes, then go to your room and pray in private, then ask for His will to be done in your life, no matter the concequences the world may throw at you, then ask for His understanding. Get out His book of instructions and just look around at nature and watch. You will truly be amazed.

IF this is not what you want, I mean if you really don't want to know the truth about ALL things….

THEN you are also wasting your time.

[david]

I have this book by stephen hawking “A Brief History of Time”

It states, or rather, he states:

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”.
“For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.”p. 125

EXTREMELY FINE TUNING OF THE UNIVERSE. I've spoke of it before, but it deserves our attention.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron — then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:
The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life — almost contrived — you might say a 'put-up job'.”

The August '97 issue of “Science” (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled “Science and God: A Warming Trend?” Here is an excerpt:
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life — such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars — also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

See:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/creatorfacts.htm

[Towshab]

Interesting that you would be linking to a Judaism website David .

[NickHassan]

Hi Laurel,
You say
“You need to ask first if there was a Creator and He would proove it to you, would you then become obedient to Him?

I mean if there really was One true God in the heavens, and He really did send His Son to us to be a living example of who He is, and could proove it to you…

Would you Set-apart your life to the One who makes all thing possible?

If yes, then go to your room and pray in private, then ask for His will to be done in your life, no matter the concequences the world may throw at you, then ask for His understanding. Get out His book of instructions and just look around at nature and watch. You will truly be amazed.”
One of the things the Creator said through His vessel, the Son, was that you need to be born again. You believe in obedience to God and I agree. God will meet you where you are but this is one matter of obedience that should not be overlooked.

Mat6
33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Acts 2
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

[david]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 18 2007,20:47)

Hi again David Quote Piltdown man. Most scientists accepted this find as a genuine subhuman ancestor of man and for 45 years this find was considered to be a missing link between man and ape! Of course, it was a total hoax. Someone had taken a human skull cap and a jaw of an orangutan, filled the teeth and planted the evidence. And yes, scientists did eventually correct this mistake. My question is: Why was the fraud so successful? Ultimately it wasn’t successful, and it was a real surprise to those who took it seriously, showing how evolutionary theory has a predictive aspect to it. Quote Could it be that evolutionary theory demanded the missing links so scientists found them. They saw what they wanted to see. And they can be deceived and can accomplish self-deception on themselves. Evolution is a fact. Perhaps this ‘fossil’ had something to contribute to the story. It didn’t, it was a hoax. What Piltdown Man does show is how much creationists love the idea of scientists as conspirators. Stuart

Yes, after 45 years, it wasn't successful. “True” is a better word. It wasn't true.

But my unanswered question was:
Why was it so successful or why did it take 45 years to uncover the fact that it was untrue?
How can something that is so important go so completely unchecked for so long?
I'm just afraid that similar things are being done on larger scales.

You continually say “evolution is a fact.” Of course, “evolution” is a word that means “slow change.” And yes, even I look different than I did 15 years ago. The “fact” that things slowly change isn't in question. But when people in general refer to evolution, they're talking about cells forming out of the soup of the sea and getting more and more complex and causing all the variety of animals we see today.

FACT:
They saw what they wanted to see. And they can be deceived and can accomplish self-deception on themselves just as easily as anyone.
It's been proven.

Quote

What Piltdown Man does show is how much creationists love the idea of scientists as conspirators.

It's the FACT that so many scientists were mislead by other scientists and didn't bother to check the FACTS. They saw what they wanted to see, what they had been told to see.

Kind of reminds me of this scripture:
2 TIMOTHY 3:1,13
“But know this, that in the last days . . . .wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.”

[david]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 18 2007,20:50)

Hi David Quote It is often claimed that science is objective and self-correcting, however in retrospect we see that the evidence to reject this find as legitimate was there all along. The file marks on the teeth of the lower jaw were clearly visible, the molars were misaligned and filed at two different angles. The canine teeth had been filed so far down that the pulp cavity had been exposed and plugged. So, why? I don’t know. You’re telling the conspiracy. Stuart

While science is somewhat objective and self-correcting, it is not as objective or as fast at self correcting as many believe.

The answer to the WHY is obvious and the only real explanation:

IT IS WHAT THEY WANTED TO BELIEVE SO THEY IGNORED THE TRUTH UNTIL THEIR “evidence” TURNED OUT TO BE BOGUS.

If it could happen with this amazing case, how much more so with the smaller things.
It seems that if I was digging in the dirt for years, I'd WANT to find meaning in there and I might just see connections and patterns that simply weren't there.

Essentially, I”m saying that all humans (scientists included) are guilty of seeing what they believe to be true, of seeing what they expect, of seeing what they want.

david

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 20 2007,20:47)

So, by exactly the same argument, your own silence on the question of how 'something' arose will be a good reason for us to no longer hear you proclaim the existence of your god. Stuart

Exactly Stu.

All of these answers are so radical that it is hard to believe any of them.

But one of them is correct.

All things have their origin in nothing, something (non-living), or someone (living).

You say nothing. But that is just as radical as something or someone when you think about it.

But you rule out someone, with no proof.

You are not a true scientist.

[Stu]

Hi Laurel

Quote

Evolution is a science. Science is simply man using his brain to figure out everything. A man's mind is enmity toward our Creator. So then, IF a man usus his own mind to figure out how we came to be… THEN He is merely wasting his time. It is all for nothing, because eventually man will prove himself wrong and realize a lot of precious time a money was wasted!

But what if the answers provided by science are right? Comparing the current body of scientific explanations and discoveries with the sum total of useful, demonstrably true knowledge gained by personal revelation, the difference is onesidedly in favour of science. How many theologians do you know who have come up with a new antibiotic because they are theologians?

Quote

If you keep debating with these people who mostly are set in their ways and do not have the truth in them, though they claim to, you are wasting your time.

Quite possibly, and I agree that the fundamentalist is only interested in making scripture fit everything (or deny the realities that disagree), but at least ignorance should be no excuse for them to do it.

Quote

You need to ask first if there was a Creator and He would proove it to you, would you then become obedient to Him? I mean if there really was One true God in the heavens, and He really did send His Son to us to be a living example of who He is, and could proove it to you… Would you Set-apart your life to the One who makes all thing possible? If yes, then go to your room and pray in private, then ask for His will to be done in your life, no matter the concequences the world may throw at you, then ask for His understanding. Get out His book of instructions and just look around at nature and watch. You will truly be amazed.

I don’t accept the loss of my faculties for reason that lightly, and I am afraid I do take a dim view of such cheap prostytising.

Quote

IF this is not what you want, I mean if you really don't want to know the truth about ALL things…. THEN you are also wasting your time.

I do care passionately about the truth and I think many here don’t. Just read the factually incorrect rant about evolution on the portal pages to this site to appreciate what I mean. If ‘evolution’ was a person, those pages would be long gone through libel action.

Stuart

[Stu]

Hi David

You have quoted several opinions (some illustrious scientists included) that bear some relation to the anthropic principle. Note that Stephen Hawking is almost talking chaos theory when he says that the universes arising from different constants would be different, likely unable to support life. The question is, what can definitely be concluded from the fact that (a) tiny changes in physical constants would have resulted in a different universe, or none, or one without life, and (b) there is life on earth?

Quote

See: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/creatorfacts.htm

As we have discussed already, opinions that lack evidence are just opinions and they demonstrate nothing. It is unfortunate for David Deutsch that he is quoted in the creationist manner (out of context) in a way that suggests he is endorsing a design point of view. This link demonstrates that he is an atheist and would do nothing of the sort (you will also find Stephen Hawking’s name on the list, and that of Steven Weinberg, who goes a bit further than ‘agnostic’):

http://www.machineslikeus.com/cms/famous-atheists.html

Dr. Paul Davies has won the Templeton Prize, a sure sign of someone wildly conjecturing for money/glory.

Stuart

[Stu]

Hi David

Quote

But my unanswered question was: Why was it so successful or why did it take 45 years to uncover the fact that it was untrue? How can something that is so important go so completely unchecked for so long?

How long do you expect it to “go on”? 400 years ago at Eton College it was compulsory for the students to smoke. You could say it took nearly 400 years for science to ‘get that right’. The point you would be missing is that there was not much evidence or experimental technique back then to discover what we now know about smoking. The same is true for Piltdown. Today, modern techniques would demonstrate the fraud very quickly.

Quote

I'm just afraid that similar things are being done on larger scales.

Accusation. Conspiracy. Smear. Have you a specific example, or evidence, or are you a typical creationist?

Quote

You continually say “evolution is a fact.” Of course, “evolution” is a word that means “slow change.” And yes, even I look different than I did 15 years ago.

The fact that you look different is not Evolution. Strawman 1.

Quote

The “fact” that things slowly change isn't in question. But when people in general refer to evolution, they're talking about cells forming out of the soup of the sea and getting more and more complex and causing all the variety of animals we see today.

No, evolution refers to the variety and complexity, not the original formation of cells. Strawman 2.

Quote

Stu: What Piltdown Man does show is how much creationists love the idea of scientists as conspirators. It's the FACT that so many scientists were mislead by other scientists and didn't bother to check the FACTS. They saw what they wanted to see, what they had been told to see.

Well that’s fine. No conspiracy then. Just incompetence. Are you willing to turn that analysis on the writing of the gospels? That is unverified data that has lasted just over 1900 years. The Catholics only took 300 years to forgive Galileo. So who is slow with fact checking here?

Quote

Kind of reminds me of this scripture: 2 TIMOTHY 3:1,13 “But know this, that in the last days . . . .wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.”

And to whom does this refer? Is this generous advice to the wise or innoculation of the faithful?
What last days? The end of the world is a fundamentalist fantasy that some fundamentalists are keen to bring on. I’d rather keep them away from the controls to the nuclear ‘deterrent’, because they are insane.

Quote

If it could happen with this amazing case, how much more so with the smaller things. It seems that if I was digging in the dirt for years, I'd WANT to find meaning in there and I might just see connections and patterns that simply weren't there. Essentially, I”m saying that all humans (scientists included) are guilty of seeing what they believe to be true, of seeing what they expect, of seeing what they want.

Judging by your posts on the Genesis mythology, your accusation is hypocritical.

Stuart

[Author]

Posts