darwin fish - it's not just for cars anymore!

[Xanex]

everyone is probably familiar by now with the darwin fish.

well, it turns out that all those cars were right

Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375-million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought missing link in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.

In two reports today in the journal Nature, a team of scientists led by Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago say they have uncovered several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish in sediments of former streambeds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole.

what does this mean for the creationists/scientist debate?

Michael J. Novacek, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, who was not involved in the research, said: "Based on what we already know, we have a very strong reason to think tetrapods evolved from lineages of fishes. This may be a critical phase in that transition that we haven't had before. A good fossil cuts through a lot of scientific argument."

Dr. Shubin's team played down the fossil's significance in the raging debate over Darwinian theory, which is opposed mainly by some conservative Christians in this country, but other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind.

for me, the worst aspect of this so-called "debate" is the assertion that evolution and faith are mutually exclusive. that a higher being must formally be recognized, even in the realm of science. as if the wonders of the universe are not wonderful enough without the explicit creation narrative.

creationists have no problem asserting the faith of their religion. what they misunderstand is that science is about evidence and not faith. it is explicitly and inherently contrary to the idea of faith, and, with the profession of faith a core pillar common to all major religions, i have a hard time understanding why creationists wish to inject religion into scientific theory at all.

science is the study of natural phenomenon. isn't this really just a debate over the limits of what we can know and how we can know it?

my thoughts? the universe is complex beyond human understanding. on the side of science, we don't claim to have all the answers. all we claim is to follow a strict method, based on observable and repeatable trials, in pursuit of understanding.

 

[JayelleNephilim]

I don't get it. If the earth is 350+ million years old, and it took millions and millions of years for lets say a fish to evolve into a bird ... why are aren't there exponentially more of these missing link fossils than there are IE: fish fossils and bird fossils? To date there has been no report of a fossil showing scales turning into feathers or a leg turning into a wing.
*before we start a huge debate on something we clearly are not going to argue our way into proving to the other side, let me just state: this is a rhetorical question.

America’s so-called “newspaper of record” to argue against a particular viewpoint like creation / intelligent design without publishing a comment from a leading creationist or ID organization makes this Times article completely unbalanced.

A few of the last times we found missing links (and other skeletons in the closet of science):

1874 - Ernst Haeckel's famous (infamous) set of 24 drawings purporting to show eight different embryos in three stages of development, as published by him in Anthropogenie, in Germany. His drawings were later declared fraudulent by Professor His (in 1874)

1900's - The Peppered Moth Story - The famous photos of light and dark moths resting on a lichen-covered tree trunk were faked by pinning and/or gluing dead moths onto logs or trunks. The filmed ‘experiments’ involved either dead moths, or laboratory moths (so stuporous they had to be warmed up first), placed on tree trunks in the daytime

1900's - Most shameful, a racist exhibit appeared 100 years ago in the Bronx Zoo of New York (and in other places, such as St. Louis, Missouri). Ota Benga, a Pygmy who was put on display in an American zoo as an example a missing link between humans and an apelike ancestor.

1922 - www.resologist.net/talent14.htm+Harold+Cook+finds+an+anthropoid+tooth&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=18]Harold Cook finds an anthropoid tooth[/url]! (turned out to be a pig tooth)

1932 - Eugene Dubois renounced his ‘Java man’ and claimed it was merely a giant gibbon.

1953 - Piltdown man fraud unfolded

1970's - Darwin's branching "Tree of Life" has been seriously undermined by the fossile record and modern biology

1997 - Unenlagia comahuensis (the dinosaur/bird link) - Dr Novas later admits that the creature cannot itself be a ‘missing link’ but claims this is what the link must have looked like.

2000 - Archaeoraptor hoax - phony feathered fossil

a humorous example
2004 - A black macaque monkey walks upright in Tel Aviv, Israel! (turned out to be it had brain damage)

As a disclaimer (haha ), everyone is entitled to their own point of view/beliefs. This is my belief: the best ‘evidence’ for evolution keeps changing. While evolutionary scientists keep getting it wrong; the Bible never changes.

 

[Aytowun]

jayelle :

the Bible never changes.

jayelle is right!!! adam and eve rode dinosaurs to chruch less than 2,000 years ago, everyone knows that.

sorry i had to come back out of retirement to post. lol.

which bible r u referring to anyways?

theres 30,000 + denominations of christianity alone, and every1 thinks they are the only correct version. I hope u arent from waco, texas.


xanex:

my thoughts? the universe is complex beyond human understanding. on the side of science, we don't claim to have all the answers. all we claim is to follow a strict method, based on observable and repeatable trials, in pursuit of understanding.

i couldn't have said it better myself =)

word to the mother!!

 

[Xanex]

a response

America’s so-called “newspaper of record” to argue against a particular viewpoint like creation / intelligent design without publishing a comment from a leading creationist or ID organization makes this Times article completely unbalanced.

hello. i would like to point out the fallacious argument argument that there are "two sides to every story" and that balance is giving equal time to each side. well, let me ask you this. if you go to a party with 5 friends and ask each friend the next day how the party was, how many different answers are you going to get?

the truth is, there are as many sides as there are people willing to offer them, but realistically, we do not have the luxury of listening and considering each one with equal care. the reason? because if you have a specific goal in mind (analysis of fossils), then you probably have a set of ground rules established by a mountain of evidence in the past. so each time someone disagrees are you going to throw away that mountain of evidence in order to give their side a "fair hearing"? of course not. the simple fact is that some sides are so incredible that they can be dismissed outright as such.

the holds true for the global warming debate as well as the evolution debate. there is simply no credible opposition. and i am speaking specifically and only in regards to the realm of science. the realm of science has very specific rules and according to those rules, the oppisition does not have a leg to stand on. but there will always be someone willing to argue the other side. and this isn't to say evolution or global warming cannot be wrong, it's just saying there are no credible SCIENTIFIC alternatives, as in, the philosophical debate about god or our creator, is a different debate than the evolutionary one, and in fact, one can believe in god and the creator and still believe in evolution.

to me, god AND evolution are the only answers that make sense, and the simplistic bible stories don't. when you think about the cells that compose your physical being, how complex they are and you study science, one can't help but feeling amazed and important, and insignificant, all at once. and if you want to talk about that, certainly, that's great. but for pseoduscience to come in and pretend the earth is only 5,000 years old and that dinosaurs coexisted with man (young-earth creationists believe this literally), with no valid evidence to back it up, facing a mountain of evidence that says otherwise, it's simply silly to allocate resources to thoroughly examing such a fantastic claim. if that is how science operated, there simply would be no time for progress. period.

that's my .02 on balance. i've taken journalism classes, and my minor is in media studies, so i feel i have a fairly competent understanding of journalistic objectivity, and the he-said, she-said state of our current news is simply abominable.

so the reason the NYT might not present the other side is because they couldn't find any crebile SCIENTISTS to argue it in this SCIENCE article. now, i'm sure there are plenty of philosophers of religion who'd love to have a say, but it would be worse than apples and oranges. how do you compare evidence with ideas?

and did you read the article? because here's the best they could do:

Duane T. Gish, a retired official of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, said, "This alleged transitional fish will have to be evaluated carefully." But he added that he still found evolution "questionable because paleontologists have yet to discover any transitional fossils between complex invertebrates and fish, and this destroys the whole evolutionary story."

the best they could do is find some "official" - with no scientific credentials - to comment, and i'm sure they felt like they have to in order to satisfy the people who feel as you do.

my main criticism is that creationists attempt to tear down the work of scientist, all the while asserting fantastical claims with not even a fraction of the evidence provided by scientists on evolution. essentially, their argument comes down to "since we don't know, it must have been god"

i'll be the first to admit the shortcomings of science, and what we haven't yet been able to do, but you must also recognize the great strides that have been made.

and a list of frauds does not provide any evidence that this article concerns a fraud, merely evidence that the possibility of a fraud exists, and i think we can all agree upon that. the list of frauds does not provide any evidence at all, however, that the specific article in mention contains inaccuracies.

"you are wrong because other peopole have been wrong in the past therefore the possibility of being wrong exists"


that said, thanks for the reply, i enjoy the dialogue and let me apologize for sounding like a condescending asshole (in general). i'm well aware of this problem, and i am sincerely trying to be better about it.

ps - here's a recent news story you mind find interesting, and a teaser

Scientists Find Chickens Retain Ancient Ability to Grow Teeth

Scientists from the universities of Wisconsin-Madison and Manchester, U.K., have reason to rejoice after a successful experiment, which caused hens to grow conical, saber-shaped teeth.

John Fallon of the University of Wisconsin, who oversaw the project, said "These results provide clear evidence that these chickens possess the memory of the past; they have retained the ability to make teeth, under certain conditions. What I am describing is evolution."

 

[Xanex]

also

i wanted to add, linking to www.creationinthecrossfire.com/ and the free republic seriously undermine your credibility. (both have very explicit agendas regarding this subject)

 

[JayelleNephilim]

Woops! Sorry! I did it again with the small font. You must of missed this part of my post:

*before we start a huge debate on something we clearly are not going to argue our way into proving to the other side ...

Just to reiterate:

... everyone is entitled to their own point of view/beliefs. This is my belief: the best ‘evidence’ for evolution keeps changing. While evolutionary scientists keep getting it wrong; the Bible never changes.

I respect your point of view. I have no interest in arguing it for the above stated reasons. If someone truly had interest in my thoughts/points of view they could freely PM me and I'd share them with them, but It's not something I'd post on a gaming message board to debate fruitlessly. I simply replied to a conversation you initiated.

PS: For what it's worth I didn't take your reply as condesending in any way. And, yes I did read both articles you originally linked.

 

[Thinkmeats]

*before we start a huge debate on something we clearly are not going to argue our way into proving to the other side ...

And that's why religion is wrong. The very core principle of science is that you never know The Truth and you have to keep striving to make it better, and that means considering all options. Religion, on the other hand, asks you to actively try to believe something, instead of just sitting back and picking whatever option seems most likely based on evidence. Blame science for attacking your religion, but blame your religion for training you to run away.

That said, you'll excuse me if I try to argue it anyway.

I don't get it. If the earth is 350+ million years old, and it took millions and millions of years for lets say a fish to evolve into a bird ... why are aren't there exponentially more of these missing link fossils than there are IE: fish fossils and bird fossils? To date there has been no report of a fossil showing scales turning into feathers or a leg turning into a wing.

Why aren't there more? May as well ask "why aren't there less"? There's no standard to go by; we find as many as we find, and that's that. There's no magic threshhold that suddenly makes jesus explode if we only catch 'em all, after all. As an aside, a very large number of fossiles have been found--enough such that the basic core of evolution isn't seriously debated anymore. Yeah, there's the ID challange, but ID isn't falsifiable: in a word, it's garbage.

Oh, and several of the sites you list as evidence (such as the ones xanex mentioned) aren't worth the zeroes and ones they're printed on. Freep and AiG are especially insane. It'd be like if someone disagreed with you and then cited Michael Moore.

edit: As an aside, private debates about religion are usually fruitless. I have no doubt I won't convince you of anything at all. The people reading this conversation, on the other hand... who knows? You're free to PM or IM me, but I'd rather it be a complement to this thread instead of a replacement for it.

 

[Mythryn]

Threads like this make me want to argue for years and years.

I enjoyed everything Jayelle said (with some arguements popping in my head) until:

the best ‘evidence’ for evolution keeps changing. While evolutionary scientists keep getting it wrong; the Bible never changes.

then I turned my :roll: face on.

I'd love to sit here and argue about this, but as has been said, it won't solve anything. Topics like this are usually best left to a private forum/discussion.

 

[Xanex]

it counts

oh that's right. the bible never changes

also, in the news: Long-lost gospel casts Judas in favorable light

(ps i have a broken clock on my wall that says consistency isn't the only thing that counts)

 

[Allielyn]

You guys Crack me up. The one line I really liked from the op was the following:

the worst aspect of this so-called "debate" is the assertion that evolution and faith are mutually exclusive.

Honestly, Science telling me that God cannot or does not exist is like someone telling me that My sister cannot exist because they have a photo from 20 years ago in sweden and she's apparently not in it. No matter what they say, or how many logical explanations there are, it doesn't change the fact that I played Katamari Dhamacy for hours with her last weekend. If they get more photos from between now and 20 years ago from places all over the world, Millions of them, and don't see my sister, it still wouldn't convince me.

Religion is about a personal relationship with deity.

Science is about understanding our world through the best tools we know.

If those two are at odds, I have no problem assuming some of the tools may be flawed, since the relationship is quite real. However, I beleive it would be a mistake to assume that we know everything about how deity works and when. Certainly there is no incongruity in assuming that perhaps God created the world as we know it through the process of evolution.

They found a fossil. I think that's interesting! It may help shed light on our natural world. I'm not going to say it's not real or it is meaningless. I'm not going to say it invalidates the entire bible. It just is.

Can we stop the whole Faith VS. Science thing? They seriously aren't like Matter and Antimatter. I realize how compelling drama can be, but there's no need for a deathmatch.

oh and Ada:

That's why Religion is Wrong

There isn't a rolleyes big enough.

 

[Thinkmeats]

Honestly, Science telling me that God cannot or does not exist is like someone telling me that My sister cannot exist because they have a photo from 20 years ago in sweden and she's apparently not in it.

Interestingly, that's accurate. Science doesn't have to prove god doesn't exist--indeed, it can't. The religious have to prove he does. But because he can never be demonstrated to actually do anything without being proven wrong (did you know that praying for a sick person and then telling them they're being prayed for makes them less likely to recover?), neither can they. Belief for something without any evidence is irrational, and god can't have evidence, therefore science says no to the jesus. If you want to believe without any evidence, that's your choice; it's simply not logically sound to do so, but logic isn't everything to everyone.

Put another way, why don't you believe in the other religions of the world? The same reason you don't believe in them is why we don't believe in yours.

Religion is about a personal relationship with deity.

No, that's faith. Religion is about churches, missionaries, charity work, the collection plate, gaining a following, helping people (good) and "helping" people by converting them (bad).

Science is about understanding our world through the best tools we know.

If those two are at odds, I have no problem assuming some of the tools may be flawed, since the relationship is quite real. However, I beleive it would be a mistake to assume that we know everything about how deity works and when. Certainly there is no incongruity in assuming that perhaps God created the world as we know it through the process of evolution.

Yes, there is, because you have to discard the scientific explenation for the origin of the world. Moreover, that's god of the gaps--if you haven't heard that term before, basically it means that religion claims god did a thing, science shows what actually did it, religion moves god back to something else, and so on.

Can we stop the whole Faith VS. Science thing? They seriously aren't like Matter and Antimatter. I realize how compelling drama can be, but there's no need for a deathmatch.

Yes, they are. Faith demands that you believe something for which there is no evidence. Science demands evidence for everything. Science exists to explain the world around us, and so does religion; religion came first, and it was "lightning is because of god"; science worked a long time to prove that lightning wasn't god, and god was replaced with actual understanding. There are very few people left today that still believe god makes lightning. Evolution is undergoing the same process.

oh and Ada:

That's why Religion is Wrong

There isn't a rolleyes big enough.

If you hadn't lifted that out of context you would see that I was talking about religion's nasty tendancy to actually tell its followers to ignore reason and believe anyway, which is pretty scummy. To retort: there isn't an :irony: big enough.

 

[Allielyn]

Interestingly, that's accurate. Science doesn't have to prove god doesn't exist--indeed, it can't. The religious have to prove he does. Belief for something without any evidence is irrational, and god can't have evidence, therefore science says no to the jesus. If you want to believe without any evidence, that's your choice; it's simply not logically sound to do so, but logic isn't everything to everyone.

Ahh, but the religious don't have to prove anything at all. Since faith is in a different realm all together, proving is really kind of silly, as you've said. And demanding proof is just as silly! However, there's a difference between beleiveing in something without evidence, and faith.

I used the sister analogy because it holds true - I talk to my sister often. I see her often. I have a personal relationship with her. I communicate regularly. I can tell by all my faculties of communication that she exists. This is evidence to me that she does. The same exists in my relationship with deity. Although I may not SEE or HEAR it, there is most DEFINITELY a connection of communication there, by all the faculties of my communication. Of course, this "evidence" is only evidence for me.

No, that's faith. Religion is about churches, missionaries, charity work, the collection plate, gaining a following, helping people (good) and "helping" people by converting them (bad).

Wrong.

re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Science is about understanding our world through the best tools we know.

If those two are at odds, I have no problem assuming some of the tools may be flawed, since the relationship is quite real. However, I beleive it would be a mistake to assume that we know everything about how deity works and when. Certainly there is no incongruity in assuming that perhaps God created the world as we know it through the process of

Yes, there is, because you have to discard the scientific explenation for the origin of the world. Moreover, that's god of the gaps--if you haven't heard that term before, basically it means that religion claims god did a thing, science shows what actually did it, religion moves god back to something else, and so on.

Ahh here you're not being clear because the definition of religion can mean multiple things. However, a certain denomination may "Say" one thing or another based upon their "traditions" but that doesn't make it true. In other words, Religions (as in institutions) may have an imperfect understanding of God's nature, or how he works, or how he has worked in the past. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it doesn't prove anything at all, except that it's possible that the lines of communication are sometimes misunderstood. It's quite obvious that the God of the old and/or new testament speaks in metaphors quite often. Sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively, sometimes both at once!

Can we stop the whole Faith VS. Science thing? They seriously aren't like Matter and Antimatter. I realize how compelling drama can be, but there's no need for a deathmatch.

Yes, they are. Faith demands that you believe something for which there is no evidence. Science demands evidence for everything. Science exists to explain the world around us, and so does religion; religion came first, and it was "lightning is because of god"; science worked a long time to prove that lightning wasn't god, and god was replaced with actual understanding. There are very few people left today that still believe god makes lightning. Evolution is undergoing the same process.

Not exclusive. Science doesn't DEMAND anything. It only seeks to understand the world through a particular process. Since religious belief is often assumed to be unprovable through said process, that doesn't make it bunk, that just means you can't prove or understand it through the scientific process. They operate in their own spheres of understanding. Sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing. Not just destroying each other when they come into contact.

oh and Ada:

That's why Religion is Wrong

There isn't a rolleyes big enough.

If you hadn't lifted that out of context you would see that I was talking about religion's nasty tendancy to actually tell its followers to ignore reason and believe anyway, which is pretty scummy. To retort: there isn't an :irony: big enough.

[/quote]

Yes I actually got that. But the blanket statement, that all of "Religion is Wrong" because of this one thing, is ridiculous. A more correct response would have been "This is where some religions (speaking in the sense of actual institutions) go wrong, or do injustice to their followers."

Oh, and P.S. I fear the reason Jayelle indicated she didn't want to start a big debate was that this thread will most certainly be locked right quick if it even looks like it might turn nasty. I do beleive she was just trying to give a different point of view, and I cannot fault her for that.

 

[Mythryn]

Why would you honestly believe in something that hasn't been proven by any concrete facts?

 

[rab]

Faith.

 

[Thinkmeats]

Faith.

I have a pet unicorn. It is invisible and on Jupiter. Discuss.

Ahh, but the religious don't have to prove anything at all. Since faith is in a different realm all together, proving is really kind of silly, as you've said. And demanding proof is just as silly! However, there's a difference between beleiveing in something without evidence, and faith.

Incorrect. The burden of proof lies on the religious because there are an infinite number of possible things which might be, so the chance of any one of them existing is effectively zero, without supporting evidence. Belief in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. Even UFO conspiracy theorists field more evidence than the religious. Also, no, there is no difference; that's the exact definition of faith.

The same exists in my relationship with deity. Although I may not SEE or HEAR it, there is most DEFINITELY a connection of communication there, by all the faculties of my communication. Of course, this "evidence" is only evidence for me.


Wrong.

No, there isn't, and I imagine you don't want to get into a discussion about whether or not you can really communicate with god because that'll go nowhere fun. Also, did you ignore the "instituionalized system" part?

Ahh here you're not being clear because the definition of religion can mean multiple things. However, a certain denomination may "Say" one thing or another based upon their "traditions" but that doesn't make it true. In other words, Religions (as in institutions) may have an imperfect understanding of God's nature, or how he works, or how he has worked in the past. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it doesn't prove anything at all, except that it's possible that the lines of communication are sometimes misunderstood. It's quite obvious that the God of the old and/or new testament speaks in metaphors quite often. Sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively, sometimes both at once!

You mean like the lines of communication were disrupted when a serial killer murders people because he thinks it's god's will? Who's communication with god is more valid? How do we know? Also, the reason it's obviously metaphorical is because it can't possibly be the literal truth because it contradicts itself more often than a sixth grader's homework essay.

Not exclusive. Science doesn't DEMAND anything. It only seeks to understand the world through a particular process. Since religious belief is often assumed to be unprovable through said process, that doesn't make it bunk, that just means you can't prove or understand it through the scientific process. They operate in their own spheres of understanding. Sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing. Not just destroying each other when they come into contact..

Hahaha, what? How many times are you gonna watch me say it before your jesus shield breaks down? If science can't prove it or disprove it, it never interacts with the real world. The only possible way there can be no evidence for god is if god never makes any changes in the real world, which makes god a useless game of lets-play-pretend about crap that isn't even in the universe.

Oh, and P.S. I fear the reason Jayelle indicated she didn't want to start a big debate was that this thread will most certainly be locked right quick if it even looks like it might turn nasty. I do beleive she was just trying to give a different point of view, and I cannot fault her for that.

Why would the thread turn nasty? I'm certainly not going to get all offended if you dont realize your error, I've dealt with the religious over and over and over again. I'm used to it. You generally can't convince the religious person you're talking to because they think you're satan tempting them or whatever. I'm talking for all the people reading this thread, and demonstrating to the best of my ability that your position is logically untenable, artificial, and overall even harmful (because of the time and effort you spend on your religion for what is essentially nothing). Moreover, I know you well enough that I doubt you're gonna suddenly start calling me names, so I think we're pretty safe.

 

[Allielyn]

[If science can't prove it or disprove it, it never interacts with the real world.

I think here's the key we disagree on. Just because Science can't prove it or disprove it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It merely means it isn't provable by scientific standards. THAT'S ALL. No More, No Less.

You happen to be generalizing that every single religion must beleive in creationism, or some other science-conflicting theory, therefore they must all be wrong, since of course according to you all science is correct. I hate to point out that there are more denominations than you can count easily, and a sweeping generalization will get you nowhere. My personal "religion" has never made such a claim, and wouldn't, unless there was direction communication between God and Man that indicated one answer was correct.

No, there isn't, [communication between God and Man] and I imagine you don't want to get into a discussion about whether or not you can really communicate with god because that'll go nowhere fun.

If religion is about God's relationship between Deity and Man, and there's no communication between the two, how can there be a relationship? When you hear people say things like "God Answers Prayers", did you assume it was all just trite coincidence and tricks of the mind? I have no problem going here. That doesn't mean I'll convince you (of course not, neither of us are convincing anyone!) but I don't mind affirming my very real knowledge of such.

Who's communication with god is more valid?

Ahh, now see, the only way to determine that is to get close enough to God himself to determine what the real truth is. Why don't you try it and find out?

I'm certainly not going to get all offended if you dont realize your error, I've dealt with the religious over and over and over again. I'

I'm not going to get offended (nor would I be remotely surprised) if you don't realize YOUR error. I've dealt with people who have made science their religion many times, and it always makes me chuckle. In fact, the only reason I post isn't to argue with you (I'm right vs. you're wrong!) but to show that the world isn't as black and white as you think it is. Faith and Science are not matter and antimatter.

I know thousands of people who have no problem reconciling faith and science. Just because YOU can't see a way to do it, doesn't mean it's impossible. I assure you, I have quite an extensive background in the sciences, and I've seen nothing in my studies to indicate that God cannot (or does not!) exist.

 

[Xanex]

good thread

hey everyone, good thread and good discussion. thanks (truly) for demonstrating that you CAN have a good discussion about religion- better than any argument i could pound out. thanks again for keeping this thread on a higher level.

to address an earlier question.. why believe?

because human being have an innate curiosity .. a desire to explain and understand. i do not know the origins of these feelings. i do know they exist, at least in my personal experience (that's the best evidence i have).

that said, i want to know about my life. i want to know about my death. it's not pretty to talk about, but unique among the human species is the understanding of our own mortality, and many argue that the fear of death is the root of all fear as we know it, while an animals fear is more primal and based on instict, our own logical reasoning that has given so much also creates all sort of negative psychological effects.

to address the crushing monotony of everyday life followed by an unavoidable death, religion, spirituallity, philosophy and even culture as a whole does a great deal to alleviate the burden of knowing that each one of us will someday die.

as for concrete facts, "concrete," used in that context, is really a matter of perception. you could explain to me in concrete facts about how a microwave works but it's no more concrete to me than explaining God made my food warm. there is a certain point where understanding fails, and this point is different for different people in different areas, but there simply can be no concrete argument, at this point, about the origins of the universe or what happens after we die, so you cannot justly use the "concrete" standard when dealing with such metaphysical musings.

 

[Allielyn]

Re: good thread

to address an earlier question.. why believe?

In my case, I was brought up to believe. At the point where I really wanted to know for myself if it was true or not, and not just believe because my parents did, I did a lot of study, attended several different denominations, and decided the question could really only be settled by an appeal to deity. As I've said earlier, God will communicate with Man, if it is desired.

I got my answer; in such a way that I could not on my life have fabricated it: consciously or subconsciously.

Why believe? Because it is True.

 

[Thinkmeats]

I think here's the key we disagree on. Just because Science can't prove it or disprove it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It merely means it isn't provable by scientific standards. THAT'S ALL. No More, No Less.

If god causes an observable effect in the real world (IE: does ANYTHING), it falls into the realm of science and can be covered by science. In order for god not to be provable by scientifc standards, god must take no actions, which makes sense--god is perfect, a perfect being has no wants or needs, a being with no wants or needs takes no actions.

As for your "what about the other religions?", frankly, wiccans haven't done anything to me lately and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is cool (may His Noodley Appendage shelter you from your troubles). Christianity is what's being discussed in this thread. I need make no sweeping generalizations: you can safely assume for the sake of argument that when I'm talking in this thread about religion, i mean yours.

If religion is about God's relationship between Deity and Man, and there's no communication between the two, how can there be a relationship? When you hear people say things like "God Answers Prayers", did you assume it was all just trite coincidence and tricks of the mind? I have no problem going here. That doesn't mean I'll convince you (of course not, neither of us are convincing anyone!) but I don't mind affirming my very real knowledge of such.

Now we're getting somewhere. You're correct: there can be no relationship if god does not communicate, and I assure you he does not (See: serial killer example). It's good that you bring up prayer. Think about it: god is *perfect*, is your prayer really gonna get him to do something he wasn't already gonna do? Your puny human brain can't hope to overmatch god's mighty godbrain. You can claim you have "very real" knowledge that god talks to you. I'm within my rights to dismiss your frankly unlikely claim as superstition or you mistakenly referring to your own subconscious as god (give yourself some credit! athiests have ephanies too, you know, so it pretty clearly isn't god).

I'm not going to get offended (nor would I be remotely surprised) if you don't realize YOUR error.

Now how will you get me to realize my error with no evidence to support your claims? If you DID have evidence, I'd welcome it with open arms, then prompty doublecheck it because that's how debates go.

I've dealt with people who have made science their religion many times, and it always makes me chuckle. In fact, the only reason I post isn't to argue with you (I'm right vs. you're wrong!) but to show that the world isn't as black and white as you think it is. Faith and Science are not matter and antimatter.

They are, in fact, matter and antimatter. As you demonstrate: you keep claiming that religion is "outside" the realm of science, when science covers all which exists in the real world by definition. Moreover, constantly claiming that they're totally seperate supports the fact that science doesn't approve of silly superstitions. The fact that those "thousands of people" probably never actually sat down to think about their faith critically means nothing. In fact, it's downright an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy--the 'ol 'if everyone jumped off a cliff would you?' thing.

Now it's time for me to go on the offensive. Why don't you believe that UFOs are real? How do you know you 'communicate with god'? What religion were you raised, if you were, and at what age? How do you deal with the problem that evil exists and an omnipotent god is by definition responsible for it? If god knows the future, the universe is deterministic--that is, free will can't exist next to an omniscient god; how do you justify people going to hell if they have no choice?

There are many, many more very fundamental problems with the christian religion, like these I've listed. Am I the devil tempting your faith? Am I an evil athiest out to wreck everything good in the world? Maybe, but that doesn't make my ass wrong.

edit: I suspected as much.

to address an earlier question.. why believe?

In my case, I was brought up to believe. At the point where I really wanted to know for myself if it was true or not, and not just believe because my parents did, I did a lot of study, attended several different denominations, and decided the question could really only be settled by an appeal to deity. As I've said earlier, God will communicate with Man, if it is desired.

I got my answer; in such a way that I could not on my life have fabricated it: consciously or subconsciously.

Why believe? Because it is True.

This is silly. You didn't know whether or not god was real so you asked god? And moreover you got your "answer" but won't say what it is, because it's probably a coincidence or some leaves blew past your window or some other such. You got your answer and my cousin was abducted by aliens: both of you are mistaken or exaggerating.

Don't you think it colored your decision just a *smidge* that you were brought up believing you'd burn for eternity if you didn't believe in jeebus? And for that matter, what kind of just god condemns someone to eternal hell? You can't earn eternal punishment for finite actions, no matter how severe. Add that one on the pile of "hahaha oh man you guys didnt think this god shit through real well did you" questions I asked earlier.

 

[Allielyn]

you can safely assume for the sake of argument that when I'm talking in this thread about religion, i mean yours.

How amusing.

Allielyn: I beleive in the scientific process, and I also have a religion. I have no contradiction between the two.

Adalus: Yes, there is a contradiction in the two.

Allielyn: uh . . . . for me no there's not?

Adalus: Yes, there is. you just don't know it! Or you won't admit it!

Let me just suffice it to say that I'm the resident expert on MY religion, and what I beleive. And I have no conflict. Thanks for listening!

Now we're getting somewhere. You're correct: there can be no relationship if god does not communicate, and I assure you he does not

Again, how amusing. Can you prove he has not communicated with me, or that he doesn't continue to do so? Oh that's right! Since you cannot observe such with the limited tools available to scientific research as the state of the art stands, it must not be happening. (sarcasm here of course, in case you didn't get it)

Science covers all which exists in the real world by definition.

Again, wrong. Science only covers that which can be observed and quantified through the tools currently developed. And don't tell me that "since God does a thing it must be observable" is an option here. I terms of evolution, you can observe how it works and why and when, but it doesn't mean it wasn't guided. We have no way of observing such, because there's no "world without God" that can work as a frame of reference. Without a frame of reference, nothing can be shown to be one way or the other.

Moreover, constantly claiming that they're totally seperate supports the fact that science doesn't approve of silly superstitions. The fact that those "thousands of people" probably never actually sat down to think about their faith critically means nothing.

Science is a methodology. It doesn't have the mental faculties to "approve" or "disapprove" of anything. Further, your blanket assumption that if people beleive, they must therefore not "think" is about as generalized and egotistaical as it can get. While I expect egotistical from you as a matter of course, generalized isn't going to work here.

Now it's time for me to go on the offensive. Why don't you believe that UFOs are real? How do you know you 'communicate with god'? What religion were you raised, if you were, and at what age? How do you deal with the problem that evil exists and an omnipotent god is by definition responsible for it? If god knows the future, the universe is deterministic--that is, free will can't exist next to an omniscient god; how do you justify people going to hell if they have no choice?

There are many, many more very fundamental problems with the christian religion, like these I've listed. Am I the devil tempting your faith? Am I an evil athiest out to wreck everything good in the world? Maybe, but that doesn't make my ass wrong.

Now your'e getting in the details of individual denominations as well as individualized beliefs. These details have little to do with the topic at hand (which is whether Science and Religion can co-exist or if they are mutually exclusive). If you seriously want answers, and are not just looking for a bone to pick or another angle of argument, you can PM me. Otherwise we'll just clutter up this debate.