Hello Mattkoo,
I want to make a few comments on your response to Donkey.
>> Evolution is a fact, creationism is not.
** I beg to differ Evolution is a theoretical model just as Creationism is.
As with most creationists who know little of evolution, you don't seem to understand that there are a number of aspects of evolution. "Evolution" is not just one big package, any more than "creationism" is one big package. There are many varieties of each, and unless you define precisely what you're talking about, no one really knows what you're talking about.
I'll assume that you're not a Young-Earth Creationist, since those people believe in abject nonsense such as "flood geology". Thus you probably allow that the universe and life on earth have been around for billions of years. Now, the basic fact of evolution is simple: the mix of life on earth has changed drastically over the billions of years that it has existed. The mix today is somewhat different from what it was a million years ago, and drastically different from what it was 500 million years ago. This is what conservative evolutionists call the "fact of evolution". Anyone who doesn't accept that has no more credibility than someone who believes that the earth is flat. It is a fact just as much as gravity is a fact, and it has been proven as solidly as anything in science can be.
Added to this basic fact are various theories, such as descent with modification, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, and so forth. These theories attempt to explain in a naturalistic way how and why life has evolved. Various theories of creationism sort of do the same, except that they all boil down to a simple idea: a god of some sort did it. This god might be the prime deity of a religion, or simply a powerful creative race that lives somewhere "out there", for certain people.
Of course, scientific theories and religious theories are not on equal footing. Scientific ones are based on evidence along with a few basic, but reasonable assumptions. A major assumption for most theories of evolution is that no intelligent force guided the evolution of life, any more than an intelligent force guides the planets in their orbits around the Sun. In both cases it is reasonable, given that no one has experimentally observed any god doing anything at all, whereas the assumption that basic laws of matter and energy guide the planets in their orbits, and accomplish plenty of other things, is entirely reasonable and directly applicable to the evolution of life.
Finally, there is the question of the origin of life, whether it was created or somehow arose on its own. The latter is called abiogenesis, and is a question entirely separate from the fact and various theories of evolution. Christian creationists are on exactly the same footing here as people who believe in some form of abiogenesis, because they invariably argue that "life must have been created by an intelligent designer", which leads directly to the question, "who created God?" If the answer is "God has always existed", then a believer in abiogenesis can with equal authority say, "matter and energy and its ability to generate life have always existed in fact or potential".
>> Just because believers want something to be true - does not make it so.
** This statement you make implies that believers believe with blind faith. This is not biblical.
In my experience, almost all Bible believers have a great deal of blind faith. For example, I have yet to see anyone come up with anything in the Bible that proves that there is a God. Therefore such belief is blind, because it's without solid evidence. Furthermore, a careful examination of various major biblical themes shows that the Bible simply has not got its facts straight. There was never a global "Noah's Flood", and if you reduce the Flood to a local event it becomes trivial, and reduces every other part of the Bible that depends on it to triviality. Genesis has the order of creation of life wrong, and if you claim that it's only a fuzzy outline of creation, you've again reduced its authority to trivia. And so it goes.
I dare say that if you set forth any claim at all that you think isn't a faith that is blind, I or other posters can show why it is blind.
** Scripture tells us in 1 Thess 5:21 to test all things and hold on to that which is good.
Very good advice.
** Also 1 Peter 3:15 explains that we are to know and understand why we believe and be able to give the reason for our belief ie. it is not supposed to be a blind faith.
"Not supposed to be" is quite different from what actually reigns in Christianity.
** 1 John 4:1 tells us to test everyone and every message and not just accept it blindly.
I completely agree.
>> Science looks for evidence and if the evidence invalidates the hypothesis then science calls for intellectual honesty.
** Yes this is how it should be. In the case of Evolution/Big Bang theories, however, it has been portrayed under the banner of science as absolute fact for many many years even though there is a stack of evidence against those models.
In light of my discussion above, you should be able to see why your statement is a gross oversimplification, and is why I claim you don't understand evolution. I suspect that, like most creationists, you've not read much, if anything at all, about evolution from good, solid material written by real scientists, but have relied on the writings of other Christians who also have little real understanding of evolution in particular, and science in general. Most of the people on this board are ex-Jehovah's Witnesses and have had quite enough of the lies and misrepresentations of science and other things in Watchtower literature. They know that the bulk of Watchtower criticisms of evolution are based on misrepresentations of evidence. And guess what? The bulk of Watchtower criticisms are borrowed from the writings of non-JW creationists.
** I have no problem with science, good science strengthens good theology.
I seriously doubt that you're sincere about this. What you define as "good science" almost certainly is "whatever science agrees with my pre-existing beliefs". So you haven't really said anything.
** Evolution/Big Bang theory makes some claims which if proven true would certainly give excellent cause to question the biblical accounts of creation. However, there are so many problems with Evolution/Big Bang theory that to believe in them you would have to throw out science as they break so many scientific laws
Now I know you have no understanding of evolution, and little of science. It's pretty obvious that whatever you think you know comes from YECS or "intelligent design" people or both. Neither group knows what it's talking about in major ways. I'll give examples if you need them.
** and in fact scientists themselves are coming out to speak out against Evolution.
Only a tiny fraction. But that's nothing new. A tiny fraction has long believed in Young-Earth Creationism, and a variety of other sorts of nonsense.
** http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm
To the writer's credit, this website actually acknowledges that the point of the website is virtually meaningless, since it argues that "Project Steve" of the NCSE is a pointed joke mitigating against just such lists of supposed authorities.
Actually the website writer hasn't entirely done his homework, since there appears on the list of "scientists and other intellectuals who doubt Darwinism" one Francis Hitching ("The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong" (1982)), who is actually a paranormalist and certainly not a scientist or Christian. Hitching's "theory" against Darwinism is that life arose via some yet-unexplained paranormal force that has nothing to do with the Christian God. One Robert Shapiro ("Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth" (1986)) is also listed. Shapiro is a good scientist who doubts pretty much everything written on the subject of abiogenesis, but not Darwinism and certainly not evolution. It's obvious that the writer has simply culled the literature for anything that calls into question any aspect of evolution or abiogenesis, without really checking that they meet his stated criteria for inclusion.
** http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php/
Essentially ditto.
I should also point out that your statements, and those in the above websites, once again show that you know far too little about evolution to comment properly on it, since you confuse the fact of evolution with Darwinism, which is the theory of descent with modification by natural selection.
>>Faith asks for no evidence and if evidence is presented it is denied anyway.
** Actually if you examine the scriptural accounts of the disciples evangelism in numerous cases when they went to evangelise they presented evidence and reasons for their belief, they did not ask the people to blindly believe them. Also when Jesus appeared to the disciples, Thomas did not believe and demanded evidence from Jesus, which Jesus gladly provided.
Perhaps, but you've deliberately left out an important point: Jesus actually said (John 20:29) "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Other New Testament references make it clear that it's a lot better to believe without evidence -- and that's exactly what a large fraction of Christians do.
** Having faith in something does not mean you do so irrationally or blindly as I've pointed out in the scriptures above and also with the examples the disciples give us.
This principle is fine, but as I showed, the Bible in the final analysis certainly does demand blind faith. You can't prove that God exists, and there's a great deal of evidence that he doesn't, and yet you're supposed to somehow get around this and ignore the evidence and come to a belief. That's irrational. Furthermore, the fact that a huge fraction of American Christians believes in Young-Earth Creationism is a testament to irrational and blind belief. Or do you claim that these people are lousy Christians?
** Faith is supported by reason, evidence and understanding.
Correction: Faith can be supported by such; faith can and often does exist without them.
** Biblical faith does not require you to check your brains at the door.
Read again John 20:29 and related scriptures.
** The biblical definition of faith is in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"
The key being how to be sure and certain.
** You may not realize it but everyday you place your faith in many things and accept many things by faith. Eg. You may have never been to China yet you believe China exists on the reliable testimony of books and others that have been there...
True, but there's a big difference between your examples and believing the Bible. You can travel to China and see for yourself; you can drive in your car and see that you won't self-destruct in ten seconds. You can't similarly verify anything in the Bible of significance. By "of significance" I don't mean things like, if the Bible says that a certain town existed, archaeologists often confirm that it indeed existed. One could similarly "confirm" that James Michener's novels are true historical accounts by the same reasoning.
** The last half of your statement here seems to indicate that you have evidence that shows Christianity is false. Please let us know what it is rather than simply implying it is there.
That's far too big a discussion for this thread; it deserves a thread all it's own. Start one if you like and see what happens.
>> It is actually pointless, you cannot use logic to argue with believers though. It is exactly the same frustration all ex-JW's have with JW's - they refuse to see the truth regardless how clearly it is pointed out for them.
** I guess you probably read my other post. I'm fairly new to Christianity and am trying to get the JWs side of the story in praciticing 1 Thess 5:21 but it seems that there aren't many JWs debating on line.
I don't think you're going to find any JWs debating anything on this board. Whenever one pops up, he's soundly trounced and goes away. JWs only have "success" in debating when the debating field is decidedly unlevel.
** I'm thinking I'm going to have to eventually drop in on a Kindom Hall or invite a couple of them over for dinner. So I don't have first hand experience reasoning with JWs so I'm not sure how frustrating it can be.
It's like trying to pick up mercury with your fingers.
** Your statements imply that there is logic that disproves God. I would like to hear it rather than simply see it being implied.
For lack of time I need to cut this short.
>> Every species on Earth carries a genetic code that is, for all intents and purposes, identical and universal.
** This shows us that everything on earth had the same designer, ie God.
It "shows" no such thing, any more than it "shows" common descent. What it shows is that common descent and God are possibilities.
** After all it makes sense that if you come up with a good design you would reuse it.
Which is pretty much what the theory of evolution by common descent teaches.
** I've only touched on the many many fatal flaws of Evolution and Big Bang. We've only looked at one area of science. As I've mentioned Evolution/Big Bang has broken so many that scientists themselves have spoken up against it.
These claims are completely off the mark. When one examines various claims of critics of evolution, one invariably finds gross or subtle flaws in the reasoning, or a partial presentation of evidence, or other problems. Try presenting a criticism on this thread and see how far you get, just as an experiment. Unless you only like preaching to the choir.
** Even if Evolution were true, and I'm not suggesting it is. It does not explain how everything got here.
Darwinism certainly offers an explanation of how life evolved via descent with modification.
** The great philosphical question here is, why is there anything rather than nothing?
Ah, you're talking about abiogenesis, and probably cosmology. Those are different subjects from evolution.
>> So would these same believers refuse to accept genetic "fingerprinting" in a court case? Do they deny the science on some things but reject it on others? Do you accept paternity test results as scientific?
** I've never said that science is bad or useless. We can all see and atest to the great advances of science which has lead to our modern day computers, space craft, military might, entertainment. The problem is that Evolution/Big Bang has been placed under the banner of science as abosolute truth for many many years.
In many cases, you're right, it has been so placed. But there's a big problem: the average person doesn't care for any explanations that take more than a minute. Such people only understand ridiculously oversimplified arguments. Much media coverage caters to them. But anyone who wants a real understanding of the various modes of evolution can read any number of books, and take university courses, where all sorts of problems are presented that show the learner that there ain't no such thing as "absolute truth" in science. So anyone who presents science as claiming to have absolute truth either doesn't understand it, or is a charlatan.
** As discoveries are made and the model is scrutinized we see that it falls apart with just some casual investigation.
Examples, please.
** God and his word have been under extreme scrutiny and criticism for hundreds if not thousands of years. Yet neither the bible nor God has ever been shown to be false as Evolution/Big Bang has, nor has its case been weakened,
There are plenty of instances proving that the Bible is simply a work of man -- a great one in many ways, but still a work of man. I listed a couple of these above. Nor can anyone prove that the Bible contains one iota of knowledge that doesn't come from man.
** in fact as more and more discoveries are made and as time goes on the case for God and his word has only strengthened.
Not really. Sure, many archaeological discoveries show that the Bible's description of something is correct, but see above.
>> Evolution is a proven fact....get over it.
** Oh really! Please do tell how it is a proven fact.
See above.
>> The debate over belief in God vs Atheism is a different matter (which shows no evidence) from either side. Of course the fact that evolution is true has called into question the Christian beliefs about God and since the Christian dogma calls on creation vs evolution it is therefore as AlanF pointed out now in a conundrum because the whole structure of the belief system is in ruins in a logical sense. Of course in a practical sense believers cling to what they were raised with so we are probably a long way off from seeing the rejection of religion.
** Actually if you really knew about all the problems Evolution faces, you would realize that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than to believe in God.
I know a lot about evolution and a lot about the Christian religion. I thoroughly disagree. You're repeating a standard creationist refrain here.
** Once again I'd like to point out that there is nothing wrong with good science. There are two types of evolution that I know of, micro and macro.
This proves that your only source of information about evolution has been critics of it. How about applying 1 Thess 5:21 and meaning it?
** Micro teaches variation within a species, ie natural selection,
What some people call "microevolution" is not natural selection.
** this is something that has been observed and creationists agree fully with it.
They have no choice, since it's been observed in the laboratory and by millions of breeders.
** Macro evolution is the type that teaches that we are descendants of apes and simply matter in motion, this is not science, it has never been observed or recreated.
Science doesn't have to directly observe something in order to draw valid conclusions. Nor do people in everday situations. Suppose you're driving in your car on a cold day and observe a frozen waterfall high on a cliff. You don't see anything in motion, but you validly infer that water, dripping slowly for quite some time, gradually formed the frozen waterfall. You might also conclude that God "spoke" the waterfall instantaneously into existence. What would be the more valid conclusion?
** Evolution is nothing more than a terribly faulty theory,
Far less so than creationism, which posits that a creator far more complex than his creation just happened to come into existence in an unknown way. If you object to that, then please answer my above points about it.
** that I believe through the education system has indoctrinated its way into the masses.
And how do you think religious education occurs? Religious education is a far more powerful form of "indoctrination" than any form of science is, because (at least for Christians) it simultaneously sets forth horrible punishments (eternal death, eternal burning hell) for those who can't be indoctrinated.
** Unfortunately most people simply accept this is absolut fact from their science teachers.
And unfortunately, most Christians simply accept various notions about God and the Bible as absolute fact from their religious teachers. The difference is that, once people get into actually practicing science, they're strongly encouraged to question things. This is the opposite of what Christian religions encourage.
** I personally think it happens like this as an example:
** A student of science is in the science class because he/she does not have a background in science and is learning more about it. The teacher teaches and the student just accepts what is taught as that is what will be examined and the student does not know enough to challenge the teacher since he/she does not have science background.
** This example may not be true for everyone, however, in my case it was definitely true.
Has it not occurred to you that a person first needs to learn a lot about a subject before he can expect to seriously challenge it? What do you think basic education is all about? It teaches what are generally accepted to be facts; details are and must be left for more advanced courses. Otherwise there wouldn't be enough time to get through the basics.
AlanF
