Creation/Evolution (agnostic, proof, society, truth)

[MontanaGuy]

solidsquid wrote:

Observation itself in the context of science is not limited to seeing the “here and now”. Were it to be limited by this, our knowledge would be severely limited.

Excellent post. It should be pointed out that the amount of evolutionary or geological change in the timeframe of a single life time is so miniscule that we're not going to gain much information from it. I brought up the problem with the young earth timeframe when I mentioned the formation of coal on a recent post and I noticed that no one even tried to respond to it. How could they? We can measure the thickness of massive deposits of coal that are filled with decayed leafs and plant material and easily conclude that this process took millions of years. There is no viable explanation from a young earth point of view that can explain this evidence and yet people continue to say that the earth is just a few thousand years old. The evidence is overwhelming that the earth is ancient and the universe itself is even more ancient.

[GregW]

MontanaGuy -

There is nothing like looking at an unconformity to help you realize the real meaning of "Deep Time". Or looking over the Grand Canyon and thinking that this is a relatively recent event.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by mams1559

This kind of retort always makes me laugh.

Glad I could bring a smile to your face.

Don't attack his credentials, because you can't as he is well educated.

I couldn't care less about his credentials. Education and character are not intrinsically linked.

Call him a liar because he doesn't buy into evolution.

No...I called him a liar because his quoted statement was a pack of lies. See solidsquid's post on the previous page for an explanation as to why.

Evolution, IMHO, is the biggest lie perpetrated in modern times.

And this is what makes me laugh. A tiny percentage of scientists object to evolution on "scientific" grounds. On further examination, we see that this 1% of scientists has something in common: Biblical creationism.

Think about what you're saying mams. It's the equivalent of claiming that electronics is a Big Lie. All I need do is show how computers, televisions, radios, etc., all work wonderfully. Evolution isn't just a "hobby" among scientists. It's a vital field, without which the entire study of biology falls apart.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

mams1559 wrote:

Alpha and I are both reading a book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" which gives a religious perspective on the big bang. The authors claim that the big bang provides one of the strongest supports to an intelligent designer that they're aware of. It's actually a well written book that you might want to read. Yes, I read books with a different point of view from time to time to get an idea of how other people think. I believe I'll always be an atheist but the authors have tried to use the scientific method to prove the existence of God so it really is an interesting read.

It is an excellent read, IMHO. Glad you are enjoying it Montanaguy. I've thought their approach to many of these issues is really good. I do believe, in the end, as I've said MANY times before, it all comes down to which side you put your faith on. Both sides require it.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

Think about what you're saying mams. It's the equivalent of claiming that electronics is a Big Lie. All I need do is show how computers, televisions, radios, etc., all work wonderfully. Evolution isn't just a "hobby" among scientists. It's a vital field, without which the entire study of biology falls apart.

When science creates life out of non-life, and then gets that life to transform into some other sort of life....we could have something to talk about...although.....IF that ever happens and science shows how they tried and tried and tried and tried to do that.....and finally they succeeded.....won't that, in fact, prove Intelligent Design??

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

It is an excellent read, IMHO. Glad you are enjoying it Montanaguy. I've thought their approach to many of these issues is really good. I do believe, in the end, as I've said MANY times before, it all comes down to which side you put your faith on. Both sides require it.

I suppose a case could be made for strong atheism requiring faith, but at its most basic, atheism is a lack of belief, which requires no faith at all.

[kaykay]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

It is an excellent read, IMHO. Glad you are enjoying it Montanaguy. I've thought their approach to many of these issues is really good. I do believe, in the end, as I've said MANY times before, it all comes down to which side you put your faith on. Both sides require it.

I saw that book in the Christian bookstore the other day when I was in and wondered if it was worthwhile. I will probably pick it up. I am also reading another one recently, a third one by Lee Stroebel called the Case for a Creator. He has also written Case for faith and Case for Christ. The creator one was pretty scientific though. I had some difficulty tracking with it all the way and consequently, haven't read the entire book but what I did read seemed pretty worthwhile especially for those interested in the really scientific angles of apologetics.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

When science creates life out of non-life, and then gets that life to transform into some other sort of life....we could have something to talk about...although.....IF that ever happens and science shows how they tried and tried and tried and tried to do that.....and finally they succeeded.....won't that, in fact, prove Intelligent Design??

The theory of evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. Solidsquid touched on this as well. I recommend his post on the previous page.

To answer your question; no, that would not prove intelligent design. It would only show that intelligent creatures are capable of reproducing natural events. An illustrative example would be cloud seeding. That we have learned how to manipulate rainfall does not mean that thunderstorms are intelligently designed.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

I suppose a case could be made for strong atheism requiring faith, but at its most basic, atheism is a lack of belief, which requires no faith at all.

I honestly don't see that. And, just for the record, that is a problem I've had long before the book Montanaguy and I are reading. I mean, you are saying that it doesn't take any faith to believe there is no God which is something you can not disprove or prove which would make me think that even the most intellectually devout atheist would logically call themselves an agnostic.('Course I know we're OT on this vein of thought).

I think it's weird how atheists and theists apparently have completely different ways of looking at things. I've seen people say things about God that they say prove to them that God doesn't exist, and when I see their 'proof' it actually proves to me that He does.

It's strange. We humans are a peculiar bunch. None of us are the same. Yet, there is similarities in all of us. Almost like we were meant to be that way instead of a heard of animals that all act and react the same.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

The theory of evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. Solidsquid touched on this as well. I recommend his post on the previous page.

I understand that and I appreciate solidsquid's post. But when I look at this whole subject matter as a 'big picture' type subject, I can't omit the parts that I don't like. And if you can't get something out of nothing. And you can't get life out of non-life. Then, again, for Alpha, all the evidence is pointing one way. Straight up!