REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Rían]

But do I influence you?

*sends more evil mind waves thru the computer in the general direction of Boston*

[Insidious Rex]

Numbers don't lie, but neither do they have opinions on non-numeric issues. The only valid conclusion that can be drawn, IMO, from the numbers that state we are statistically insignificant (in terms of percentage of molecules in the universe, I think you mean) is that ... we are statistically insignificant ((in terms of percentage of molecules in the universe). I don't see how these numbers can comment on whether or not we're important to God (if He exists).

well it certainly doesn’t support it. My only point was if you look at what we can measure then its seems unlikely that we are so special.

(And a virus is statistically insignificant when introduced into a human population that is not resistant to it. but look at the damage it can do )

that’s a parallel situation? Although I would agree that as far as the universe is concerned we are essentially a virus.

The OT focuses more on justice and the fact that there must be a price paid for sins; the NT focuses more on God's mercy by His solving the problem stated in the OT by providing Jesus as a price for our sins.

so then this is more just an example of how the humans who write biblical works can come off quite differently when speaking about the same thing?

do you say I'm close-minded SOLELY based upon the fact that after examining the evidence for both sides and thinking alot about it that I think creationism is more supported by the evidence?

im not going to get into your mistakes in judgment and why you may make them and how you rationalize them thanks. That would get messy fast. my point is that it is hypocritical for someone who is completely convinced of a far from established religiously based belief to call an agnostic, who believes that he CANT give ALL the answers but who lays out what we DO know, close minded. I still cant even grasp the very notion of that without smiling and shaking my head in disbelief.

basically that Christians mindlessly think that homosexuality is wrong only because it happens to be described as wrong in the Bible

are you saying Christians bias against homosexuality ISNT related to what is layed out in the bible? Then where on earth does it come from if not from the oft quoted biblical source?

and I think it is a more courageous and good thing to pick a worldview (after much thought) and live it out

and I think it’s a better thing to accept what we can perceive with our senses about the universe, learn from it, even extrapolate from it to the things we don’t yet know then to convince ourselves that we know things that we DON’T know because it fits with our religion (I mean with the "worldview" we picked).

And I think that you are often NOT open-minded, because you can't seem to get outside of your viewpoint, like I do. IOW, I don't see you ASSUMING what I say is TRUE, then thinking it through.

Ive been down the creationist road so many times and ive studied the evidence against it and its all old news to me. Ive seen you repeat arguments over and over after many people have refuted them with known evidence but yet they keep appearing. Ive also seen you ignore great points that show how science and evolution have real legitimacy. What am I to assume from all that Rian? If we are talking about gardening or music or cooking or sports you certainly wont have to worry about me being dubious toward what you say because what you have to say about such topics is legitimate and your own and quite worthy of hearing. But when you get into your fundamental beliefs about creationism well Ive never seen anything on this message board that I haven’t seen before (usually many times before) and that doesn’t have a pretty straightforward refutement to it. There is a real denial aspect to how you speak of creationism. The same is true for many creationists. Have you ever considered the possibility that you are actually unaware of your own ability to rationalize something that you want so badly to believe? And your intelligence gives you better tools toward this effort? Can this not be possible? Im sure you would admit this occurs in many other people. Im sure you would admit this is a well known measurable aspect of human psychology. Could this not also occur in you? The human mind is powerful indeed. You can be smart and yet you can unconsciously convince yourself to deny the obvious because it goes against your most fundamental mental and emotional and spiritual anchor which is of course Christianity. Take that standard approach you are so proud of and ASSUME for a minute that you are IN FACT engaged in denial when it comes to your approach to evolution and creationism. Then show me where this assumption falls apart and what points of evidence demonstrate its inaccuracy.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
well it certainly doesn’t support it. My only point was if you look at what we can measure then its seems unlikely that we are so special.

The numbers neither support nor disprove it; IMO, they have nothing to say in the matter - they only speak number-ese

that’s a parallel situation? Although I would agree that as far as the universe is concerned we are essentially a virus.

I meant it only as an interesting comparision.

so then this is more just an example of how the humans who write biblical works can come off quite differently when speaking about the same thing?

I don't understand what you mean. The SAME characteristics are in both OT and NT and can be shown by many verses; the focus of the OT is on sin and judgement; the focus of the NT is on salvation and mercy. But all characteristics are present in both OT and NT. There are different points to OT and NT, that's all. No big deal; no contradictions.

im not going to get into your mistakes in judgment and why you may make them and how you rationalize them thanks. That would get messy fast. my point is that it is hypocritical for someone who is completely convinced of a far from established religiously based belief to call an agnostic, who believes that he CANT give ALL the answers but who lays out what we DO know, close minded. I still cant even grasp the very notion of that without smiling and shaking my head in disbelief.

And I smile and shake my head in disbelief at YOU, m'dear! I really do. And I won't get into YOUR mistakes in judgement - perhaps we should just call it a draw, I don't know. Call me deluded, if you wish (I think YOU are ), but please don't call me hypocritical.

And how are YOU in an authoritative position to be someone "who lays out what we DO know", btw? A bit presumptuous, aren't you?

and for the gazillionth time, I'm NOT "completely convinced" of creationism! Do you hear me? Hel-LO! For the gazillionth time, I think it is the BETTER fit of the two. I do NOT think evolutionism is completely wrong, or creationism completely right. Now do I need to say it a gazillion and ONE times, buster? or do you finally hear me?

are you saying Christians bias against homosexuality ISNT related to what is layed out in the bible? Then where on earth does it come from if not from the oft quoted biblical source?

*sigh* no, I did NOT say that. I'll re-quote it: "... basically that Christians mindlessly think that homosexuality is wrong only because it happens to be described as wrong in the Bible". Note "only" and "mindlessly". As I hope would be apparent to anyone that's read my LENGTHY and NUMEROUS posts on the homosexual thread, I have NOT "only" and "mindlessly" decided that homosexuality is wrong, thankyouverymuch.

and I think it’s a better thing to accept what we can perceive with our senses about the universe, learn from it, even extrapolate from it to the things we don’t yet know then to convince ourselves that we know things that we DON’T know because it fits with our religion (I mean with the "worldview" we picked).

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. It seems that earlier, you're saying that we should stick with what we can observe, and here you're saying we should extrapolate? Could you please clear this up? Perhaps I'm misreading your sentences here.

Ive been down the creationist road so many times and ive studied the evidence against it and its all old news to me. Ive seen you repeat arguments over and over after many people have refuted them with known evidence but yet they keep appearing.

"known evidence"?!

As BOP says, Bollocks!!

As I've said many times before, it seems the gist of the argument is "well, given enough time, it can happen." Well sorry, but that's not science, that's faith, and unfounded faith.

Do things like punctuated equilibrium REALLY not bother you at ALL? Talk about a lack of evidence! Sheesh! Talk about holding onto an element of a theory no matter what, even when supporting evidence can't be found. Truly sad, IMO. PE was developed because they couldn't find sufficient (if any) fossil evidence to support transitional forms. PE is a theory based on LACK OF EVIDENCE - IOW, since they WILL NOT give up on the unproven idea of macroevolution, they say that it must have occurred quickly and in short busts, WITHOUT leaving ANY evidence of it happening in the fossil record.

Are you TRULY not bothered by that? I find it astounding if you are not.

The part of creationism that bothers me the most is their theory of fossil positioning by water sorting and catastrophism; I do NOT embrace the whole theory mindlessly. But compared to punc. equil., this is not nearly as bad. And some parts of evolutionism seem fairly reasonable. But OVERALL, I think creationism is the better fit.

Ive also seen you ignore great points that show how science and evolution have real legitimacy. What am I to assume from all that Rian?

IRex, you know how those threads get - it's me "against" 10 people sometimes, and I have a RL that I have to keep up with. I have NOT EVER, EVER ignored a "great point" intentionally, but I may have missed quite a few accidentally. Also, saying that I disagree and giving reasons is NOT ignoring; perhaps that's what you meant by me ignoring "great points."

I have NO problems with the legitimacy of science in general. I DO have problems with the legitimacy of certain parts of the theory of evolution that are, BY DEFINITION, outside of the realm of scientific evaluation, being treated as if they were inside, and spoken about as if they were fact. (and to be fair, it seems that most of the TRUE scientists seem to not speak incorrectly; it's the people that come after them - mainly the journalists).

Assume what you want; I've said until I'm blue in the face that I've looked at the evidence and happen to think that creationism is a BETTER fit; tho not a perfect fit. And I'm quite partial to the evidence that can be seen, as opposed to "evidence" that is in the imagination, such as punctuated equilibrium. And that should appeal to you, since you think things we can see are important.

[Rían]

(con't)

by Irex
There is a real denial aspect to how you speak of creationism. The same is true for many creationists. Have you ever considered the possibility that you are actually unaware of your own ability to rationalize something that you want so badly to believe? And your intelligence gives you better tools toward this effort? Can this not be possible? Im sure you would admit this occurs in many other people. Im sure you would admit this is a well known measurable aspect of human psychology. Could this not also occur in you? The human mind is powerful indeed. You can be smart and yet you can unconsciously convince yourself to deny the obvious because it goes against your most fundamental mental and emotional and spiritual anchor which is of course Christianity. Take that standard approach you are so proud of and ASSUME for a minute that you are IN FACT engaged in denial when it comes to your approach to evolution and creationism. Then show me where this assumption falls apart and what points of evidence demonstrate its inaccuracy.

Again, what can I say, except I'd LOVE to go have a drink with you right now And I see a MAJOR denial in you in this issue. Again, doesn't PE bother you at ALL?

Now for me to assume that I"m in denial, I would have to have a "therefore" statement to check it against, like "I'm in denial, and THEREFORE ..." What do you wish to insert there? I would think it would be "THEREFORE I ignore good evidence for evolution and ignore the faults of bad evidence for creationism due to my wanting creationism to be true." Is that good enough for you, or would you like to suggest something else? When you let me know, I'll go ahead and think about it

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Lalaith_Elf
Okay Rian, thanks again for the info, unfortunatly I've just skimmed through the posts (I have a short attention span, so generally I have to 'skim'). What your saying - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that the choice to go to Heaven or Hell when you die is your own choice and it's not decieded by God. If you have faith in God and if you wish to go to Heaven, then you will get into Heaven. So - from a Christians perspective - since I choose of my own freewill to be Pagan and to follow Paganism, with no belief or faith in the Christian God, I am consciously choosing not to go to Heaven?

I was definitely hoping Christianity didn't have this take on it. My own personal version of Chistianity, aka, my worldview (I like that term, thanks RÃ*an) feels that you're not going to hell. Because, I don't really believe in hell, or the Devil. That doesn't mean you're allowed to go out and sin now though! *glares*

Anyway, let's say for the sake of argument that the general consensus in Christianity is that Pagans (or any non-Christian) will go to hell because they actively chose not to be Christian, and therefore, actively chose to go to Hell. (This actually may be the consensus. I don't believe this but a lot of people do.)

This is a lot like Jehova's witnesses; the reason they go door-to-door and try to convert people is because they believe that anyone who is not a Jehova's witness will go to hell when they die. They want to save as many people as possible.

However, Christians who aren't Jehova's witnesses do not believe they're going to hell. Who is right? We can't judge.

Along those lines, Christians can't judge non-Christians. In the Christian worldview, Pagans will go to hell. In the Pagan worldview, they will not go to hell.

What is truth in one worldview is not the truth in a different worldview. What is the ultimate truth? Maybe there isn't one. But it is egotistical for a person to declare that their worldview is the ultimate truth. (I'm not saying you're doing that RÃ*an, but that does add another angle to your argument.)


About your excellent essay IR - I give it an A+. I agree with a lot of your points.

However, I have a different belief about the Creator. (I'm going to start typing 'she', not because the Creator has any human qualities, but because I don't want to keep typing 'the Creator'.) I think it's entirely possible for the Creator to be aware, and to love and care about every living organism she made.

I believe the Universe and the Creator are infinite. Humans are a tiny speck of this creation, but she is still aware of us and all other creations - earthworms, alien life, viruses etc.

The Creator is a concept outside of human thought. We can only wonder how we are made, and glimpse a piece of her with our very human minds.

If someone was to become enlightened with the truth of the Universe and the Creator, he wouldn't be able to explain it without altering the truth with human concepts, even though he fully understands the truth.

There is nothing wrong with having a human concept of the Creator, we just should reflect that we don't know the ultimate truth, therefore, other worldviews should not necessarily be discounted.

Looks like I wrote an essay of my own. Feel free to skim Lal.

As a side-note, what does it mean to be Pagan Lal? (I'm curious about these things, just as Valandil. )

EDIT: Actually, the real reason I typed 'she' instead of 'the Creator' is because sentance structure doesn't sound right without pronouns. See, the human concepts are twisting my ideas already.

EDIT2:

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Again, what can I say, except I'd LOVE to go have a drink with you right now And I see a MAJOR denial in you in this issue. Again, doesn't PE bother you at ALL?

What is punctuated equilibrium?

I think it's safe to note that RÃ*an hasn't made any "things are definitely this way, because my worldview is right"-type staments, and probably isn't about to. (This comment isn't directed at any one person, but it is worth noting.)

I'm done now. Really. I'm going this time.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Ithilgalad

(So it´s HEART and FREE WILL... but who said that the Christian Heaven and Hell concept is the ONE system? Maybe the buddhism nirvana is what awaits us... nobody cares for Jesus there . Everybody has to find the answer for himself... and I guess... everybody will find himself right... God/Allah/Whatever is omnipotent and any other omni- you can think of... so why should it be impossible for IT to provide each of us with their own concept of what comes after death?

In that case, I'm gonna become a Muslim (What happened to the 'leer' smilie?)

Q: How can you tell Rian's back?
A: A thread that you checked once a week, you have to check once an hour.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But do I influence you?

*sends more evil mind waves thru the computer in the general direction of Boston*

yes... you (and Val and others here) have done a lot to improve my view of the more "orthodox" religious types... you're quite a bit more reasonable and open-minded than i originally expected

you also help me to clarify and better define my position... much like the flip-side of the medieval devil's advocate who tested the beliefs of the believers, you're my lord's advocate, testing the strength of my non-belief

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And I smile and shake my head in disbelief at YOU, m'dear! I really do

well at least we amuse each other then.

And how are YOU in an authoritative position to be someone "who lays out what we DO know", btw? A bit presumptuous, aren't you?

oh Im not. But science is. And mathematics is. And psychology is. Etc. Is Christianity?

and for the gazillionth time, I'm NOT "completely convinced" of creationism! Do you hear me? Hel-LO! For the gazillionth time, I think it is the BETTER fit of the two. I do NOT think evolutionism is completely wrong, or creationism completely right. Now do I need to say it a gazillion and ONE times, buster? or do you finally hear me?

hm? What? Oh did you say something? I guess it comes off to me as if its very black and white to you since all ive noticed was ridicule for even basic evolutionary ideas and trumpeting of completely disproven creationist propaganda points.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. It seems that earlier, you're saying that we should stick with what we can observe, and here you're saying we should extrapolate? Could you please clear this up? Perhaps I'm misreading your sentences here.

I said FEEL FREE to extrapolate. You can extrapolate in math. Its allowed. But never confuse extrapolation with whole cloth fabrication. Or better yet with assuming. Theres a big difference between extrapolation and with assuming. And honestly how could you ever keep a human being from extrapolating based on what he knows?

Do things like punctuated equilibrium REALLY not bother you at ALL? Talk about a lack of evidence! Sheesh! Talk about holding onto an element of a theory no matter what, even when supporting evidence can't be found.

wait how is punctuated equilibrium defeated because theres no supporting evidence for it? Im confused as to how you conclude that. The theory of Punctuated Equilibria has been suggested as a way to explain the patterns which are found in the fossil record. Is that a crime? This pattern includes the “characteristically abrupt appearance of new species, the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils when those are found, the apparent differences in morphology between ancestral and daughter species, and the pattern of extinction of species.� As Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould say. Whats the problem? You see something in nature and you see what kind of theory would fit your observations. How do YOU come up with theories then if not that way?


Punctuated equilibrium is NOT mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. I think you are making the supposition that it is here. Its not. There are plenty of examples of life forms who have had all sorts of transitional stages. Whales come to mind. Horses. Not to mention all the currently LIVING animals whose skeletal structure show us EXACTLY that! And these are ALWAYS ignored by creationists. Wonder why… So really punctuated equilibrium is simply a piece of the evolutionary picture. Why do you parade it around like a captured enemy flag on your humvee?

PE is a theory based on LACK OF EVIDENCE

yeah that’s what I figured you were getting at. That’s the most common creationist attack on punctuated equilibrium but its rather bizarre in my opinion. Tell me do you also laugh off the idea of plate tectonics simply based on the fact that you cant see the continents move no matter how hard you stare? Well see in science you can look at the WHOLE picture and see what natural explanations there may be for how we got from here to there. We can do that with continental plates. Why cant we attempt to do that with evolutionary shifts? Seems kind of unfair to limit what kind of science you are allowed to use to examine your world…

Oh heres something I found that may be relevant and show how old this argument is:

PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972). Similarly, discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of pages in Gould and Eldredge 1977. This also answers those who claimed that E&G said that PE was unverifiable.

The references there are:
1. Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Models In Paleobiology (Ed. by T. J. M. Schopf).
2. Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3, 115-151.

Feel free to check em out at your local library if you don’t believe me.

IRex, you know how those threads get - it's me "against" 10 people sometimes, and I have a RL that I have to keep up with.

I sure do. And I hold off from getting into EVERY single point you make that I disagree with for that very reason. I think ive actually told you this in the past if im not mistaken. But sometimes I just gotta say something…

(and to be fair, it seems that most of the TRUE scientists seem to not speak incorrectly; it's the people that come after them - mainly the journalists).

wait… who do you consider a TRUE scientist exactly?

Again, what can I say, except I'd LOVE to go have a drink with you right now

That would be cool. We could play a drinking game. Every time someone says evolution you do a shot. Every time someone says creationism (and keeps a straight face) I do a shot.

Again, doesn't PE bother you at ALL?

Not at all. See above. By the way does the story of Noah’s Ark bother you?

[Insidious Rex]

Now for me to assume that I"m in denial, I would have to have a "therefore" statement to check it against, like "I'm in denial, and THEREFORE ..." What do you wish to insert there? I would think it would be "THEREFORE I ignore good evidence for evolution and ignore the faults of bad evidence for creationism due to my wanting creationism to be true." Is that good enough for you, or would you like to suggest something else? When you let me know, I'll go ahead and think about it

No I would say you are in denial because your spiritual connection with Christianity is SO incredibly important to you (and nothing wrong with that) that a scientific theory that is at logger heads with Christianity (to you at least - and therefore threatens your very belief system) is UNacceptable. Period. So your quick mind comes up with all sorts of ways to sabatoge it and undermine it and thereby satisfy yourself that your worldview is right after all. Whew! Catastrophy avoided. Assuming this is true (and again im just presenting the case) I can hardly fault you for this Rian. Its like someone telling a loving parent oh your kid isn’t special your kid has problems that you have to deal with. WHAT!! MY KID IS SPECIAL!! HOW DARE YOU!!! Well… just maybe your “kid� isn’t special rian (and Im just cringing at that analogy PLEASE know *wince *). But that’s asking you a LOT to accept that. Ok im stopping there. Im killing myself tip toeing in sensitive territory and it bothers me.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel


EDIT2:

What is punctuated equilibrium?

In case you didn't manage to pilfer the meaning of I-Rex's statements, the basic gist of PE is that evolutionary development wasn't linear, in that there were periods of stasis, followed by periods of intensive development, and so on.

[Nurvingiel]

Thank you BoP. You're the only person to respond to my excellent post! I know Rian will when she comes on though.

Anyway, PE seems like a perfectly reasonable theory to me.

[BeardofPants]

Well, that's the basic gist. More here if you want to take a gander.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
No I would say you are in denial because your spiritual connection with Christianity is SO incredibly important to you (and nothing wrong with that) that a scientific theory that is at logger heads with Christianity (to you at least - and therefore threatens your very belief system) is UNacceptable. Period.

So to you, I'm in denial, no matter what evidence I can offer to the contrary? You won't consider any evidence? Sounds close-minded to me. And you can offer no "therefore" statement for me to even evaluate your claim? No matter what I say, I'm just in denial about evolution, and there's no way to check if it's true or not? Why did you ask me to evaluate it if you won't give me anything to evaluate it WITH? I'll have to just write it off as an unfounded and incorrect opinion, I guess. But of course you're free to have opinions - but I still don't understand why you would challenge me to consider it then give me nothing to evaluate it with.

And as I've said before, (seems like I'm saying that a LOT lately ) if a bunch of great new evidence comes up for evolution, then I might switch over and think it's true. It does NOT affect my faith in God. It would take other kinds of evidence to do that. So your statement doesn't even apply, because I don't consider evolution to be at loggerheads with Christianity, because God could be behind evolution (which is non-testable). But I think you'll say I'm in denial, anyway, right? It seems like you just can't give that up, even when I come right out and say that I don't consider evolution to be at loggerheads with Christianity. Now that I've taken away that reason, what new reason will you come up with to say that I'm in denial?

.... Im killing myself tip toeing in sensitive territory and it bothers me.

No offense taken You're a friend.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
However, I have a different belief about the Creator. (I'm going to start typing 'she', not because the Creator has any human qualities, but because I don't want to keep typing 'the Creator'.) I think it's entirely possible for the Creator to be aware, and to love and care about every living organism she made.

I believe the Universe and the Creator are infinite. Humans are a tiny speck of this creation, but she is still aware of us and all other creations - earthworms, alien life, viruses etc.

The Creator is a concept outside of human thought. We can only wonder how we are made, and glimpse a piece of her with our very human minds.

If someone was to become enlightened with the truth of the Universe and the Creator, he wouldn't be able to explain it without altering the truth with human concepts, even though he fully understands the truth.

There is nothing wrong with having a human concept of the Creator, we just should reflect that we don't know the ultimate truth, therefore, other worldviews should not necessarily be discounted.

interesting concept... i would assume that this type of creator wouldn't be terribly concerned with day to day morals of any single one of her creations?

i'm also curious why a creator is necessarily "outside of human thought"? (i.e. incomprehensible)

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
interesting concept... i would assume that this type of creator wouldn't be terribly concerned with day to day morals of any single one of her creations?

Thanks you Brownie.
Well, she certainly could care about day to day morals. I don't personally think she's concerned about what goes on in the bedroom, but I don't discount the possibility of this.

i'm also curious why a creator is necessarily "outside of human thought"? (i.e. incomprehensible)

Is an ant aware of the size of the tree it's on?
Though, maybe we do know what the Creator is like. I doubt it, but in my worldview, practically everything is possible.

EDIT: *pokes Rian* I really want to know what you think about my earlier (on this page) essay post. I want to hear your PoV on the subject.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
oh Im not. But science is. And mathematics is. And psychology is.

Well, I'd agree about math, but science in general? What about flat earth? what about spontaneous generation? Are you saying that at this point in time, everything we know happens to be right? If so, how do you support that? My goodness, you can't - today's scientists disagree about things! So whatever subset YOU have picked to be the "truth" very likely contains some errors, wouldn't you say?

and psychology, fergoodnesssakes?!

Is Christianity?

Yes, in my humble (and educated) opinion. You, in your humble and educated opinion, disagree. But neither opinion can be proven in a lab, so it really doesn't matter as far as this discussion.

hm? What? Oh did you say something? I guess it comes off to me as if its very black and white to you since all ive noticed was ridicule for even basic evolutionary ideas and trumpeting of completely disproven creationist propaganda points.

whatever ...

I said FEEL FREE to extrapolate. You can extrapolate in math. Its allowed.

Um, yes, as a college-level math minor (computer science major), I would say that it's "allowed" in the sense that the math police do not come roaring up to your door and arrest you if you extrapolate. But it's also very clearly pointed out that it is v. subject to error and only founded on educated guessing. ONE and ONLY ONE extrapolation will be correct; ALL THE REST will be WRONG.

wait how is punctuated equilibrium defeated because theres no supporting evidence for it? Im confused as to how you conclude that.

I'm not saying it's "defeated"; I merely point out that it is not supported any more than, say, God creating things.

The theory of Punctuated Equilibria has been suggested as a way to explain the patterns which are found in the fossil record. Is that a crime? This pattern includes the “characteristically abrupt appearance of new species, the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils when those are found, the apparent differences in morphology between ancestral and daughter species, and the pattern of extinction of species.� As Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould say. Whats the problem? You see something in nature and you see what kind of theory would fit your observations. How do YOU come up with theories then if not that way?

OK, here's what I mean. The expectation in the years after Darwin was that as more fossils were found, there would be transitional forms found. Personally, I don't see how this can be denied, except by someone in denial . Then after scads and scads of fossils were found, it became quite apparent that the EXPECTED amounts of transitional forms were NOT found. Fine. So what happens? Because the predictions of gradualism were found to be false, will the underlying assumption of macroevolution be thrown out? No. (and this is key - evolutionists are UNWILLING to throw out the unproven premise of macroevolution). Instead, a theory is formed that tries to explain the actual appearance of the fossil record. AND THIS IS FINE!!! If you're unwilling to throw out an underlying premise, then come up with another mechanism. (repeat - AND THIS IS FINE! And it is also what creationists do - they want to keep their underlying premise, and will explore different mechanisms.) The only problem is that PE is supported by evidence in the NEGATIVE sense, which is NOT PROOF.

Let me try to show an example off the top of my head. Say when you mix chemical A and chemical B, that chemical C always shows up as a by-product, and if you mix A with D, E, or F, chemical C does NOT show up. This is based on SCIENCE - repeatable, observable procedures. Then based on this knowledge, you could take an unknown chemical, X, which is either B, D, E, or F (but you don't know which) and mix it with A, and if chemical C does NOT show up, you could conclude that chemical X is NOT chemical B. That would be a valid proof based on "lack" of evidence.

However, you CAN'T chemical A and mix it with an unknown chemical and see a non-reaction and say "well, it MUST be chemical D, E, or F, since we KNOW that these don't react with chemical A." There could be another chemical out there that doesn't react with chemical A! In this case, lack of evidence is NOT proof. (prob. a lousy example, but hey - I just made it up. Please try to be open-minded and I think you can see what I mean).

So you can't just say "well, we see large periods of stasis and abrupt appearances of new species, therefore MACROEVOLUTION must occur in short spurts that just HAPPEN to not appear in the fossil record." This is FINE as a theory, but it does NOT prove that MACROEVOLUTION happened! At the VERY BEST, it proves that IF macroevolution (and that's a HUGE "if") happened, then it happened this way. And again, I object to it being represented as proveable. And as far as supported by evidence - well, duh! It was formulated by looking at the evidence. And I can formulate lots of other nice little theories by looking at the same evidence that are all equally unproveable.

.... Whales come to mind. Horses. Not to mention all the currently LIVING animals whose skeletal structure show us EXACTLY that! And these are ALWAYS ignored by creationists. Wonder why…

This is getting too long, and I suppose we should move over to the creationism thread - but they AREN'T ignored by creationists - but I don't think you'll believe me, because I think you're in denial (whales - are you aware of the MASSIVE size differences in the proposed transitionals? horses - why do the three-toed ones also appear AFTER the solid-hooved ones? And why does it matter, since they're all HORSES?)

yeah that’s what I figured you were getting at. That’s the most common creationist attack on punctuated equilibrium but its rather bizarre in my opinion. Tell me do you also laugh off the idea of plate tectonics simply based on the fact that you cant see the continents move no matter how hard you stare? Well see in science you can look at the WHOLE picture and see what natural explanations there may be for how we got from here to there. We can do that with continental plates. Why cant we attempt to do that with evolutionary shifts? Seems kind of unfair to limit what kind of science you are allowed to use to examine your world…

Explained above.

wait… who do you consider a TRUE scientist exactly?

at the minimum, a scientific degree-holder. I don't think most journalists are.

That would be cool. We could play a drinking game. Every time someone says evolution you do a shot. Every time someone says creationism (and keeps a straight face) I do a shot.

whatever

By the way does the story of Noah’s Ark bother you? [/B]

I think there is some evidence for it. But I would not hold it up as entirely supported by scientific evidence. All I'm trying to do is point out that MANY parts of evolution are in the same boat (pun intended)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
What is truth in one worldview is not the truth in a different worldview. What is the ultimate truth? Maybe there isn't one. But it is egotistical for a person to declare that their worldview is the ultimate truth. (I'm not saying you're doing that RÃ*an, but that does add another angle to your argument.)

I'm out of time, Nurvi, so poke me again later and I'll share my POV with you (thanks for asking). In the meantime, tho, I'll say that UNLESS you believe that there IS an ultimate truth in certain areas (and I'm talking ultimate truth about things like how the world got here and how humans are made, NOT things like what's the best ice-cream flavor in the world, which does NOT have an ultimate truth associated with it ) then it's not much use discussing the subject, wouldn't you agree?

IOW, there may not be an ultimate truth about the best sport to plaly, but there ARE ultimate truths about things that I kinda think of "rewindable and playable on a tv". And if the technology existed, and there was a giant videocamera recording things, then we could rewind the tape and play it on a tv and see if macroevolution really DID happen, or if God really DID create us essentially as we are now. Do you see what I mean? If you can't assent to that idea, then there's really no use in discussing these differering worldview possibilities, IMO. Do you agree?

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Q: How can you tell Rian's back?
A: A thread that you checked once a week, you have to check once an hour.

It's your guys' fault for being so intelligent and fun to talk to!

BTW, what did you think of my response to your Mt. St. Helens post?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I think there is some evidence for it. But I would not hold it up as entirely supported by scientific evidence. All I'm trying to do is point out that MANY parts of evolution are in the same boat (pun intended)

Lol nice pun. Very punny.
That's true - a lot of different religions have huge floods as part of their creation stories. This suggests that historically there was a huge flood.

I don't believe the Arc story to the letter. The point of it is the message, not the specific actions. I don't think it's meant to be taken literally.

EDIT: *nag* Respond to my essay! I really want to know what you think. Not to attack you or anything (I would never do that), but because I value your opinion, it's insightful.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I think it's entirely possible for the Creator to be aware, and to love and care about every living organism she made.

how do you qualify or define “awareness� and “love� and “care� in regards to a creator we cant conceptualize? See what Im getting at?

I believe the Universe and the Creator are infinite. Humans are a tiny speck of this creation, but she is still aware of us and all other creations - earthworms, alien life, viruses etc.

how do you know that?

The Creator is a concept outside of human thought.

absolutely. Which is why I generally stop making assumptions in regards to this creator (what happened to calling her she? )

If someone was to become enlightened with the truth of the Universe and the Creator, he wouldn't be able to explain it without altering the truth with human concepts, even though he fully understands the truth.

I don’t know if it would be possible for a human to truly understand the Truth of the creator (or creative force). Just as its unlikely that a slug could understand quantum mechanics. That’s my opinion of course since Im not going to assume as a given that we are the universal maximum in terms of cognitive ability. I think “we� have a long way to go with that. Just as the slug has a long way to go before it achieves true understanding of quantum theory.

There is nothing wrong with having a human concept of the Creator, we just should reflect that we don't know the ultimate truth, therefore, other worldviews should not necessarily be discounted.

well I find it to be useless in that it implies something about a creator that seems statistically to be highly unlikely. I see it instead as being a human cloaking if you will of an incomprehensible divinity. We anthropomorphosise everything so why should god be any different.