The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[Polymath257]

what?

What is unclear about what that said?

Atheism is not believing in any God. That is different than believing none exist. The difference is the lack of proof.

 

[Valjean]

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.

If you don't look at or understand the evidence, I understand your skepticism. But you're making specific assertions about its falsehood, so how do you back them up?
If I put on a blindfold and walked through a room full of monkeys, and later stated there were no monkeys in the room, would that be a rational claim?

Study the evidence before condemning it. Understand why science makes the claims it does.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If you don't look at or understand the evidence, I understand your skepticism. But you're making specific assertions about its falsehood, so how do you back them up?
If I put on a blindfold and walked through a room full of monkeys, and later stated there were no monkeys in the room, would that be a rational claim?

Study the evidence before condemning it. Understand why science makes the claims it does.

I think many involved in science want there not to be a God so bad, they go to almost any lengths to find a way to convince themselves he doesn't exist.

 

[Valjean]

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

How do you know that?
Do you believe Muhammad flew to Jerusalem on a horse? Do you believe Theseus killed the Minotaur, or that Aslan was slain by the white witch? Why not? Your requirements for evidence seem pretty low.

 

[Valjean]

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

Do you believe they don't exist?
Beliefs aren't of much interest without knowing the reasons for the beliefs and evidence supporting them. Some beliefs are true, some nonsense. By what mechanism are we to evaluate beliefs?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

All of that exists in the fossil record. This is a really outdated creationist talking point (I'm talking like, at least 60 years out of date).
Besides that, genetics alone demonstrates that evolution is a fact of life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Which is not a belief. It's a LACK of a belief. Not believing something isn't a belief.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

When did anyone prove that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think many involved in science want there not to be a God so bad, they go to almost any lengths to find a way to convince themselves he doesn't exist.

What are you basing that on?

 

[Polymath257]

I think many involved in science want there not to be a God so bad, they go to almost any lengths to find a way to convince themselves he doesn't exist.

The history is different than that. Many of the early scientists expected to see the Bible verified in their studies. When the evidence showed them wrong, it eventually lead to our understanding of evolution.

Many people want God to exist so badly they are willing to deny any contrary evidence. Even more, they so want the Bible to be accurate that they deny the many places where it goes against facts.

 

[Valjean]

I think many involved in science want there not to be a God so bad, they go to almost any lengths to find a way to convince themselves he doesn't exist.

Almost everyone involved in science never gives God a thought. Science pays no attention to the Idea unless some believer brings it up.
Unless there's actual, testable evidence for a thing, science ignores it.

There is no logical reason or need to disprove God. Like leprechauns or unicorns, He's assumed not to exist until actual evidence of existence emerges.
Non-existence is the default. Why would anyone need to convince themselves of a default claim?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Your beliefs are really irrelevant to reality. It is reality that tells us how to build nuclear reactors and atomic bombs, that exact same reality allows us to date rocks in Canada to 4 billion and meteorites found on the ground at 4.5 billion years old.

 

[Pogo]

I think many involved in science want there not to be a God so bad, they go to almost any lengths to find a way to convince themselves he doesn't exist.

Even if that were true, it is irrelevant to the age of the earth which has been determined by both religious and non-religious scientists. It is only those who idolize a particular human interpretation of an ancient text that seem to have a problem.

 

[John53]

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?

Maybe it requires a cause so our human brains can understand it. It's hard to wrap your brain around an idea like the Big Bang Theory, at least it is for me.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think many involved in science want there not to be a God so bad, they go to almost any lengths to find a way to convince themselves he doesn't exist.

Nah, this is your inadequacies showing, given that they probably wouldn't be in science unless they were searching for ways to reflect reality in their work rather than their desires - which is what so many having religious beliefs do - and so many of such beliefs to choose from if one even looks. Not so with science, where honesty is a priority first if good science is what is aimed for.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

1. Yes, we have a LOT of evidence from over a billion years ago. We can verify the age in a number of independent ways. As a trivial example, we know of many galaxies that are severl billion light years away. The light from them took billions of years to reach us.

2. Yes, *all* measurements have error bars. Any idea can be misinterpreted. One of the basic aspects of science is to understand how to follow the propagation of possible errors. So, for example, a radioactive date using KAr dating may well have an error bar of 1%. But, if the date obtained is 2 billion years (so it could be 20 million years off), there is no possible way the thing dated was only 6000 years old.

3. is it possible to misinterpret? of course! That is why we have multiple scientists look at the data. Don't forget that the best way to become famous in science is to show an old idea is wrong. The reward structure for science is set up to award challenges that work. But don't forget that the *original* theories were Bible based. Those were overturned by people who *wanted* to prove the Bible correct because the evidence didn't support their desires. At least they were honest enough to acknowledge that fact.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe it requires a cause so our human brains can understand it. It's hard to wrap your brain around an idea like the Big Bang Theory, at least it is for me.

Well, to properly understand it requires a fair amount of math. If you don't understand the concept of curved spacetime, you can't understand the BB theory.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe it requires a cause so our human brains can understand it. It's hard to wrap your brain around an idea like the Big Bang Theory, at least it is for me.

The universe is under no obligation to be understandable by humans. Especially those who don't want to put in the work necessary.

 

[John53]

The universe is under no obligation to be understandable by humans. Especially those who don't want to put in the work necessary.

That is true. I wasn't blaming the universe, the fault lies with my limited education and laziness.

 

[metis]

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?

Remember how I started my sentence out: "Whatever caused this... I'll call 'God'...". Even with quantum mechanics, there's still probably cause & effect even if we don't know or understand exactly what all the causes may be. I have several books on BB cosmology, and there's myriads of hypotheses out there on this.

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

Yep. I don't have a problem with that.

How about you?