The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[metis]

How about "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse we'll call 'God' and pretty much just leave it at that"?

 

[Polymath257]

How about "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse we'll call 'God' and pretty much just leave it at that"?

1. What does the word “cause” mean outside of the universe/multiverse? Why does the universe require a cause?

2. Since deities are usually thought of as conscious and intelligent, why is that word appropriate? Why would a cause be either?

 

[metis]

1. What does the word “cause” mean outside of the universe/multiverse? Why does the universe require a cause?

IOW, what started the Big Bang? Basic cause & effect.

2. Since deities are usually thought of as conscious and intelligent, why is that word appropriate? Why would a cause be either?

Who said it needed a "conscious and intelligent deity"? I'm sorta in the Spinoza camp myself.

 

[Polymath257]

IOW, what started the Big Bang? Basic cause & effect.

Cause and effect is a result of natural laws, not a logical necessity. In fact, we know of uncaused events at the quantum level.

Why would we expect causality to be a thing outside of the universe and natural laws?

Who said it needed a "conscious and intelligent deity"? I'm sorta in the Spinoza camp myself.

Fair enough. Although Spinoza was closer to calling the natural laws “God”. Or the universe as a whole.

 

[SkepticThinker]

True that both are a belief. The only thing is if one is true, then it would actually be more valid wouldn't it?

No. Not having a belief, isn't a belief.

 

[SkepticThinker]

none of these other gods have the evidence to support their deity. So no, my wager stands firm as it always has.

Yours doesn't either. You're in the same boat. Making a bogus wager.

I dont know why you separate the Jewish God from Christian God. Even Jews will admit they are the same God! the only difference between the two is whether or not Christ was God. This has no bearing on the belief in the Father

Because they are very different.

 

[SkepticThinker]

given your usual way of thinking about these things, im not suprised by that statement. You are an individual who doesnt give a rats...so why even bother? As i have said before, i do not know why you even discuss these things...its a pointless endeavour to even engage with you on these things. But you know what, as ive done many times before, ill go there again...

Perhaps he does care and your mind reading skills need some work.

1. Epistomology forms part of human nature. We are inquisitive and want to know where we came from, why we are here, and what happens next. Its innate within us that we do not want to die.

And ... ?

2. The most consistent answer to the above question with by far (and i mean BY FAR) the most volumous evidence is Christianity. Its writings are the oldest, most consistent, and most well supported through internal and external evidence, of any philosophical world view. when applied to all aspects of our existence, it better answers the Epistomological dilemma humans face than any other world view.

This is false. There are many religions much older than Christianity, for starters. But even if Christianity were the oldest, the age of it has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

The stories in the Bible are not well supported through internal and external evidence. Especially the fantastical ones. Never mind that the creation story doesn't line up with what we actually know about the formation of the universe and the earth.

3. We all know that you dont believe the above, but honestly, i dont really care. The reason i don't care is that you refuse to even research the Christian philosophy and its evidences properly...so engaging with you at length on these issues is timewasting.

Many of us atheists used to be Christians and have already done this. Some of us have already spent a great deal of time going over this stuff.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Oh my goodness. I can think of no greater way to transmit values than fiction. Think of how Jesus used parables. The fact that no Good Samaritan ever literally existed does not at all detract from the lesson that we should help those in need regardless of ethnicity. Just an hour or so ago, I was sharing with someone how the Lord of the Rings had been instrumental in shaping my teenage conscience. One of the reasons I read a lot of science fiction is that it is so good at turning over ethical issues.

No wonder you believe things came from evolution, since you believe in science fiction.

 

[Valjean]

How about "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse we'll call 'God' and pretty much just leave it at that"?

Then you're not worshiping a conscious personage, just the laws of mathematics, the four fundamental forces, quantum mechanics, &c. These, of course, are not even aware of your worship, or of you.

 

[Valjean]

TrueBeliever37 said:
True that both are a belief. The only thing is if one is true, then it would actually be more valid wouldn't it?

Truth and validity are different things. A statement can be one and not the other.
Logic 101.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If certain events happened, they would be *expected* to leave evidence. So the lack of evidence *is* a good reason to think those events did not happen.

Hi Polymath257,

That's one of the reasons I have a problem with evolution. If it was really true that evolution is the way different species came to be, then there shouldn't be such gaps in the fossil records. There should be smooth transition. There should be more intermediate/transitional forms between different species. It should be the norm.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

But these claims are based on evidence we can find *today*, not ancient writings subject to translation errors and misinterpretation (not to mention superstition and ignorance on the part of the authors). Instead we look at the universe itself and the remains of events that happened in the past (a much more reliable source of information, even for more recent events).

Sorry, but I just don't believe you really have evidence from a billion years ago. Even if you did, you talk about something lending itself to errors and misinterpretation.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Atheism is not believing there is a god, believing there is no god is different

what?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Yes, birds ands mammals are fabulous creatures. But we were talking about how life originated. That origin was before the first birds or mammals, long before the first fish, and long before complex cells (eucaryotes).

You can't prove that. It's only speculation.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It was the Reed Sea.

He parted the Jordan too. It's called the 12 stones crossing.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No. Not having a belief, isn't a belief.

If I don't believe in leprechauns. That is my belief.

 

[Valjean]

No wonder you believe things came from evolution, since you believe in science fiction.

What fiction would that be?

Hi Polymath257,

That's one of the reasons I have a problem with evolution. If it was really true that evolution is the way different species came to be, then there shouldn't be such gaps in the fossil records. There should be smooth transition. There should be more intermediate/transitional forms between different species. It should be the norm.

So unless we can observe each individual step in a process we can't conclude anything about it, even that it occurred? Wouldn't that make you doubt practically everything that happens in the world? Wouldn't the courts grind to a halt, for example?

We understand the processes of evolution; how it works. We have more than enough evolutionary steps in the fossil and genomic records to conclude that a certain, known sequence happened.
I don't think you realize what we know, how much we know, or how we know it.
Evolution is an observable, testable process. We can watch it happen. We can test the various mechanisms involved. There is no reason to conclude that the same processes weren't happening in the past, and yielding the same results we see today.

We do see smooth transitions in many fossil records, but keep in mind that fossilization is rare, as is finding one.

 

[Polymath257]

Hi Polymath257,

That's one of the reasons I have a problem with evolution. If it was really true that evolution is the way different species came to be, then there shouldn't be such gaps in the fossil records. There should be smooth transition. There should be more intermediate/transitional forms between different species. It should be the norm.

That is because fossilization isn’t that easy. You don’t expect that often in any given line. What we do see enough detail to know the species change significantly over geological time, with new species arising and old ones going extinct (with exceptions).

As for smoothness of the transition, what looks smooth at a resolution of thousands of years can look punctuated in a scale of millions. We have also seen evolution of new traits in the lab and what we see is a more punctuated development.

 

[Polymath257]

You can't prove that. It's only speculation.

Oh, absolutely we can prove that. The first life was over 3.5 mullion years ago. The first fish less than 550 million years ago, the first mammals will after that, etc. Those dates are not at issue, at least to within a few million years either way.

 

[Polymath257]

If I don't believe in leprechauns. That is my belief.

And yet you believe in being that are even less likely to actually exist. Hmmm