Proof of Creationism (ID)

fscyclist

They have a general idea. Wind and water erosion over millions of years. That theory is based upon our observations of similar occurences we observe or recreate.

My point, which was lost, is that no one knows all the major events that contributed to this geological formation. If you can detail a year by year diary of the formation of the Grand Canyon for the last 100 million years, I'd be impressed.

nns1400

[QUOTE=Crankyfeet]

But faith requires whole-hearted belief. And belief, for me, requires evidence and something that makes sense. This is the obstacle to my experiencing true faith.

[QUOTE]

Why?

I think that is an all-or-nothing distinction you may not realize you're making. There is weak faith and strong faith, often experienced by the same person. There's a little faith and a lot of faith....or a tiny mustard seed of faith. I think it's a journey. And sometimes on that path you find yourself having once strong faith melt into almost no faith depending on life's circumstances. And back again. I've noticed you sometimes post comments against black and white thinking when it comes to politics, etc. But maybe you are doing that in matters of the spirit. Or I could be off the mark. Apologies if so.

That one cost a quarter...

__________________
If someone really bothers you, think about walking a mile in their shoes...then, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have their shoes.

fscyclist

Dawkins (and other pop scientists like him) are not pursuing scientific observations. They are trying to use their credentials as scientists to argue a non-scientific principle, the presence or absence of a god. It's no different than religious leaders using isolated observations or 'scientific discoveries' to prove a god exists. I expect the misuse of scientific observations by religious leaders but it is more dishonest and deceptive when done by a scientist.

Crankyfeet

He is a scientist trying to make reasoned judgments because of the recent encroachments of religion iinto political thinking. He understands scientific principles and uses them in a qualified manor. He knows you can't disprove God's existence just as you can't disprove the existence of the "Green Spaghetti Monster". But you can make probabilistic judgments, such as in the case of the "Green Spaghetti Monster".

An example of an unscientific principle is the belief that the world was created 6,000 years ago, that all species today were exactly the same at creation, that dinosaurs existed alongside man, that a great flood in history covered the world and its mountains, etc. These are unscientific principles. They can be shown to the Nth degree, with multitudes of evidence, to be false.

It sounds to me like you don't like the message he communicates or the messenger. I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that you haven't read his books. Notwithstanding that this may be the case, can you give me one example where his logic or any point he makes is flawed? Apart from the general "You can't disprove God exists" which he acknowledges anyway.

nns1400

Cranky - I just thought of a book you might find interesting called I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler. Talks about some of the things that you have brought up here before.

__________________
If someone really bothers you, think about walking a mile in their shoes...then, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have their shoes.

Crankyfeet

Thank you. But I need to finish "The Case for Faith" first.

Crankyfeet

The point here is "how" it was formed. If I am sure of how my house was built, for instance, I don't need to know a chronological log of when every nail was hammered in, or every brick was layed.

This argument incidently is one of the chief arguments layed against the theory of evolution. That because we don't have linkages connecting everything in the fossil record, therefore the theory can't be proved. However you don't need a complete fossil record to support the theory. A complete fossil record is only a circumstantial occurrence anyway, as fossils only form (and are found) in rare circumstances. The theory meshes with the fossil record 100% and as yet hasn't been invalidated by any find in the chronological geologic layers.

Did you know that over 90% of the dog breeds you see today, didn't exist 300 years ago. That is an example of artificially influenced evolution.

nns1400

Lim posted some article about him around here somewhere, and it was his political comments that were at issue. I distinctly remember complaining about it, but I can't remember the details at the moment.

Anyway, Lim responded that the article made it sound more inflammatory than the book actually is. Which seems to be the main function of the media these days. However, if I read it again I'll be sure to tell you what he said that sucked so bad...

__________________
If someone really bothers you, think about walking a mile in their shoes...then, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have their shoes.

fscyclist

Look, I never said I didn't believe the main tenents of evolutionary theory so you don't need to argue it. And by the way, I have more than a 2nd grade education and understand breeding experiments.

My point, which I'll simplify, is that it's unfortunate that research and study into the origins of life has been politicized. And your incorrect to think that all observations or more importantly future observations fit into a current theory. If they did, scientists would be done with their work. Theories evolve as new evidence and thought is produced. Some people are interested in learning, others already think they have all the answers.

Crankyfeet

I didn't mean to patronize you . I mistakenly pigeon-holed you as one of those closed-minded evangelistic morons who dispute that the world is older than 6,000 years. My mistake, I apologize.

But when in my posts have I said that evolutionary theory matches all future observations. Yes, the Intelligent Designers and Creationists have managed to drum it into everyone that science doesn't have answers because all theories can be superceded by better ones. Whilst that is a true statement, it implies that science is constantly making quantum jumps in theory and understanding all the time. The reality is that science makes incremental small jumps in theory and knowledge very rarely, to what already exists.

One of the biggest jumps in the last 100 years was Einsteins theory of Relativity which redefined gravitational equations. It was a major jump in understanding, but it only changed observational differences by about 0.01% and didn't change anything with regard observable phenomena on earth.

Saying that there is not merit to a theory because it can be superceded is about as useful as saying that you are not a human being because you can't prove you're not an alien.

So you're saying that Dawkins didn't say anything wrong, he just politicized the argument? I think Dawkins was reacting in astonishment to how much religious beliefs were affecting scientific research and education. It was a defence action.

Also it may be dangerous to ignore the inevitable politicization of religion. We are seeing the effects of it today, with people reciting the Koran as they fly a plane load of people into a building, and governments stalling scientific research because it seems to contradict (arguably) their biblical morals. The world is becoming a smaller place, and peoples beliefs are colliding more and more.

Carrera

One thing is a personal belief system that helps the individual explain the meaning of life and gives some sense of purpose. This may be Christianity, Gnosticism, Krishna or whatever.
Still, it's another thing entirely for an evangelical elite to move into the sphere of regional and national government and base policy-making on their own interpreted morality.
Here's a simple fact. In the U.S.A. today, you're sunk as a potential President unless you can convince the masses you're a full-bloodied evangelical. Even liberals such as Hilary Clinton have been forced to make some sort of public proclamation about belief in God. No other than Arnold S has been forced to state he's a Catholic but modify his statement by pointing out he wouldn't let this interfere with policy-making (taking a swipe at Bush, perhaps).
Now I see there's another big Repub tipped for leadership - propelled by the fact he's a Baptist minister.
In the U.S. there's definitely a situation developed whereby religion and politics have merged. That's very dangerous territory to be in since it's more or less been proven secular, liberal society is the best option for human rights and freedom. Whenever some religious faction has run a country in the past, there has been repression and stagnation or science has been held back.
If liberals don't stay on the ball and grasp what's going on and then make a stand for the secular society we had in the seventies and eighties, we're going to see people prosecuted over minor alcohol infractions, assumed immorality (i.e. visiting a poll-dance bar or something), assumed blasphemy or teaching subject matter that conflicts with the Bible or Koran.
All it takes is for fundamentalist preachers to get into office and the problems will begin.
Keep religion private and let society run its own course. That's the only way forwards.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

Carrera

"Also it may be dangerous to ignore the inevitable politicization of religion. We are seeing the effects of it today, with people reciting the Koran as they fly a plane load of people into a building, and governments stalling scientific research because it seems to contradict (arguably) their biblical morals. The world is becoming a smaller place, and peoples beliefs are colliding more and more."

That's what I said above, more or less: If you look at history, you often see cycles of progress and stagnation. The Greeks, for instance, were super advanced and politically and culturally way ahead of the U.S.A. and Europe for their time. Religion in Greece was a mix of tradition, a bit of superstition and then more in-depth philosophy and the said philosophy applied to science. Above all, unlike modern times, Greeks did not in any way look to Kings or leaders and pass this off by calling themselves a "democracy" like here in the U.K. where Blair was virtually unaccountable.
Pass from the collapse of Rome and the Classical World and we went into hundreds of years of stagnation. All that technology was lost as was democracy in place of Kings, Queens and Religious Rule.
Today we seem to be slipping back into the Dark Ages politically and socially. Democracy has to be a dead duck. No way can I buy into this nonsense that politicians have this hand-me-down right to feather their nests, dismiss popular feeling and go into politics for personal gain, (without having any specific political training or grasp of global intricacies).
If a so-called representative Party does lose power as the New Labour in this country may do, you can bet your bottom dollar many of these people will flee to the rival party (Conservative) at the last moment which leaves far less opportunity for development and change.
Getting back to your point: In the face of all this lack of democracy and new leadership cults where the likes of Blair and Bush have substituted collective, democratic, popular participation, the masses are now turning back to religion. Islam is growing like never before in Europe and the Middle East (as a political variant). In America, Christianity is a deciding factor in politics. Even worse, civilized values have been on the retreat and crime has become totally unacceptable - the sign of an ailing social structure.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

Crankyfeet

Seriously Carrera. Can you go two posts without mentioning Arnold Schwarzenegger? Its got so repetitive that you have now shortened him to "Arnold S".

Apart from your Arney fetish, it displays your topical tabloid news bent. There are 50 State governers in the US. He is only one of them. The reason you read about him in the news is because of his tabloid/hollywood celebrity appeal.

And furthermore, unless they change the Constitution, which is unlikely, Mr. Schwarzenegger CANNOT, by law, become the president of the United States. So please drop that delusion.

And just in case you don't have a present picture of him to update your wall:

Attached Thumbnails

 

Crankyfeet

OK. Seems like this thread has meandered with one of the poster's wandering thoughts onto world politics again. But I can't let this post go without some commentary.If you are, as in your previous posts, touting communism as a better alternative, you picked the wrong issue when you depict democratic leaders as feathering their own nests. At least they're accountable and can be exposed as corrupt. Go to China and see what the undemocratic "State" leaders own there. And what people there can do about it. Nothing.Values are definitely changing, as they have throughout history. But your citing of rising crime seems to conflict with the facts. Crime in the US for example is on the decline in most cities.