Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

[crazyfella]

"I'm totally prepared to believe the Bible is wrong if you can show" me life developing and transforming into the several billion different ways that it did through mere happenstance.

That is fair. If man is able to create life from non-living matter, then you are prepared to believe the Bible is false.

Let me make it easier. Many people here have asked for proof of God. Prove God does NOT exist. Disprove my theory. Without your disproof, it's no less acceptable than your theory.

Two things - one, I stated no theory, and you have attempted to place me on a "side" in a debate I have not taken sides on. You might guess, but you'd probably be wrong.

Secondly - scientifically and logically, it is impossible to prove the NON-existence of something. Scientists don't do that - they're merely skeptical about things that are not proven. You can do this in mathematics (i.e. prove there is no highest prime number) but that's about it. And the case I used only works because it contains the seed of its own disproof. First cause is similar and actual works to disprove God, because no matter how far back you go, you're facing infinity. It'l like that lady who insists the earth is sitting on the back of a giant turtle. When asked "pray tell, what is the turtle standing on?" and she snaps "don't be so smart young man, it's turtles all the way down".

You can DISPROVE the non-existence of something by citing ONE case of existence. You can DISPROVE a theory by showing one case where it fails. You cannot PROVE something doesn't exist, because you cannot be everywhere, everytime. Nor can you find a way to do that. I can't prove there's no Bigfoot or Roswell aliens, but I can PROVE it if I can produce ONE.

As I said - I don't believe faith and science are antagonists by necessity. I don't live my life believing in the love of my wife and children by proving it in experimentation. I have "faith" in those, although I have anecdotal evidence to support it. Much of my life is conducted by faith, because I don't want to have to live each day that way.

I consider proofs that God doesn't exist to be about as rational as ones that Santa Claus does not exist. Proving the non-existence of something is not science.

 

[Larry Gude]

To...

I consider proofs that God doesn't exist to be about as rational as ones that Santa Claus does not exist. Proving the non-existence of something is not science.

...follow on that point, I don't think faith should be subjected to arguments of scientific proof. Defeats the purpose.

 

[High EGT]

...follow on that point, I don't think faith should be subjected to arguments of scientific proof. Defeats the purpose.

To bad they didn,t think in those terms back in 1925 Tennessee (The Monkey Trial)

 

[Larry Gude]

Don't you...

To bad they didn,t think in those terms back in 1925 Tennessee (The Monkey Trial)

...think that was about local politics? Not exactly the most reasonable of professions when passions become inflamed.

 

[This_person]

That is fair. If man is able to create life from non-living matter, then you are prepared to believe the Bible is false.

No, but if man can create life in an entirely lifeless planet of muck, and then turn that single cell into trees, birds, insects, animals, diseases, bacteria, etc., etc., then I'll be prepared to believe there are alternatives to the Bible.

Two things - one, I stated no theory, and you have attempted to place me on a "side" in a debate I have not taken sides on. You might guess, but you'd probably be wrong.

I was saying "you" in the general, not specific, term. Sorry.

Secondly - scientifically and logically, it is impossible to prove the NON-existence of something. Scientists don't do that - they're merely skeptical about things that are not proven. You can do this in mathematics (i.e. prove there is no highest prime number) but that's about it. And the case I used only works because it contains the seed of its own disproof. First cause is similar and actual works to disprove God, because no matter how far back you go, you're facing infinity. It'l like that lady who insists the earth is sitting on the back of a giant turtle. When asked "pray tell, what is the turtle standing on?" and she snaps "don't be so smart young man, it's turtles all the way down".

You can DISPROVE the non-existence of something by citing ONE case of existence. You can DISPROVE a theory by showing one case where it fails. You cannot PROVE something doesn't exist, because you cannot be everywhere, everytime. Nor can you find a way to do that. I can't prove there's no Bigfoot or Roswell aliens, but I can PROVE it if I can produce ONE.

As I said - I don't believe faith and science are antagonists by necessity. I don't live my life believing in the love of my wife and children by proving it in experimentation. I have "faith" in those, although I have anecdotal evidence to support it. Much of my life is conducted by faith, because I don't want to have to live each day that way.

I consider proofs that God doesn't exist to be about as rational as ones that Santa Claus does not exist. Proving the non-existence of something is not science.

I agree, the concepts are not antagonistic in concept. I further agree that proving the existence or non-existance of God is a fruitless measure.

 

[crazyfella]

...follow on that point, I don't think faith should be subjected to arguments of scientific proof. Defeats the purpose.

To quote Hebrews 11:1 "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see". The entire chapter then goes on to describe examples of faith which can never be construed by the modern brain as "proof", scientifically or otherwise. They are not the same, are not intended to be, and anyone who says otherwise is playing word games. Even writers of the Bible made the distinction between believing and knowing.

 

[High EGT]

...think that was about local politics? Not exactly the most reasonable of professions when passions become inflamed.

Local politics aside, can you quote me anywhere when Creationism vs. Darwinism was debated that passion for your position was not potentially inflammatory. When the subject deals with our very existence how can it not become passionate in not inflamed. Even today, when the race card is dealt in debates, stand by with a fire hose.

 

[Larry Gude]

That same...

Local politics aside, can you quote me anywhere when Creationism vs. Darwinism was debated that passion for your position was not potentially inflammatory. When the subject deals with our very existence how can it not become passionate in not inflamed. Even today, when the race card is dealt in debates, stand by with a fire hose.

...argument, not to that extent or level of excitement, doesn't happen in NYC in 1925.

 

[Novus Collectus]

There are mathematical theories, but 2 + 2 = 4 is fact, not theory.

The strongest thing you wrote is that theory is not the same as fact. Thus endeth the argument that it's right. It COULD be right, but it's not necessarily right.

Actually artithmetic is a concept and therefore 2 + 2 = 4 is not a fact, but a theory in the same way that evolution and gravity is a theory. Your definition of scientific and mathmetic "theory" is not the same definition of mathmetic and scientific theory that the sciences use.
I wish you understood your misunderstanding of the word.

And, it still says nothing about the origin of life.

Yes, it still says nothing about the origin of life. It does however show that evolution has most likely occured.

The question is still, so what? How does that in any way negate Intelligent Design?

Intelligent Design is not a part of science. Trying to disprove a philosophy with science is like using science to prove the existence of god or how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Intelligent Design is faith, not science.

 

[Novus Collectus]

...
However, I'm a pretty strong adherant to Intelligent Design. "I'm totally prepared to believe the Bible is wrong if you can show" me life developing and transforming into the several billion different ways that it did through mere happenstance.
...

We have observed evolution in real life through repeatable experimentation thus showing predictions to be accurate and thereby supporting the assertions of the theory. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html

 

[river rat]

Easy.

If The Origin of Species is right, the the Bible is wrong.

The Bible is not wrong, so The Origin of Species is wrong.

Deduction my dear Watson.

Most importantly.......to add to what you've said.

We as an itelligent species "want" to believe in "life after death".
Human nature needs this, it calms our "fears" of death.

If we accept and teach Darwinism we have given up on "eternal life".
How would we act as a society if this was the common opinion. huh?

 

[Lugnut]

If we accept and teach Darwinism we have given up on "eternal life".
How would we act as a society if this was the common opinion. huh?

Interesting argument. That would seem to support the idea that religion promotes a "kindler gentler" society.

I don't think that's the case historically. I don't mean the crusades, or wars between nations on religious grounds. I mean the treatment of individuals within a single social entity (tribe, nation/state, nation, etc).

It's only in the very recent past that the concept of "Human Rights" was created. Arguably, it's greatest supporters are the societies in which religion has a weaker grasp on it's citizens.

 

[This_person]

Most importantly.......to add to what you've said.

We as an itelligent species "want" to believe in "life after death".
Human nature needs this, it calms our "fears" of death.

If we accept and teach Darwinism we have given up on "eternal life".
How would we act as a society if this was the common opinion. huh?

Are you suggesting an atheist acts with less deference to his fellow man than a religious person?

 

[This_person]

Interesting argument. That would seem to support the idea that religion promotes a "kindler gentler" society.

I don't think that's the case historically. I don't mean the crusades, or wars between nations on religious grounds. I mean the treatment of individuals within a single social entity (tribe, nation/state, nation, etc).

It's only in the very recent past that the concept of "Human Rights" was created. Arguably, it's greatest supporters are the societies in which religion has a weaker grasp on it's citizens.

Can you expound on this with some examples? It seems very contradictory to common thought, and I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[High EGT]

Duh

Wow
Its taken 94 post to come to the conclusion that Religion after all may be necessary within a society so as to provide a moral compass or code of behavior where no other is provided. Next Topic?

 

[Xaquin44]

Wow
Its taken 94 post to come to the conclusion that Religion after all may be necessary within a society so as to provide a moral compass or code of behavior where no other is provided. Next Topic?

not really.

People will be good if they want, religion or not.

 

[This_person]

not really.

People will be good if they want, religion or not.

RiverRat and Lugnuts post seem to disagree with you.

 

[Xaquin44]

RiverRat and Lugnuts post seem to disagree with you.

I don't care.

 

[This_person]

I don't care.

Bad mood today?

 

[Xaquin44]

Nope =)